From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5ED221382C5 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:49:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C7637E09CA; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:49:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (mail.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7531AE093D for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:49:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiot (d202-252.icpnet.pl [109.173.202.252]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EB290335C50; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:49:26 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1518259763.1474.4.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] SAT-based dependency solver: request for test cases From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 11:49:23 +0100 In-Reply-To: <23166.51034.422148.490561@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> References: <1518250836.1474.3.camel@gentoo.org> <23166.51034.422148.490561@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.24.6 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 40dce539-772b-4832-8747-19307a423cdb X-Archives-Hash: 6e75ae13a46c0d4fc2e866bb2a2e4e42 W dniu sob, 10.02.2018 o godzinie 11∶20 +0100, użytkownik Ulrich Mueller napisał: > > > > > > On Sat, 10 Feb 2018, Michał Górny wrote: > > Example: many packages have impossible circular dependencies. > > However, Portage conditionally pretends they don't exist, preferring > > some random install-time breakage over fixing the packages in > > question. > > Isn't that what the PMS allows, though? RDEPEND must be fulfilled, > "unless the particular dependency results in a circular dependency, > in which case it may be installed later". > Yes, and I regret ever adjusting this to match the horribly misjudged Portage behavior. -- Best regards, Michał Górny