From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 94160 invoked by alias); 13 Dec 2017 17:31:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Sender: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 94147 invoked by uid 89); 13 Dec 2017 17:31:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=transaction, our X-HELO: limerock01.mail.cornell.edu Received: from limerock01.mail.cornell.edu (HELO limerock01.mail.cornell.edu) (128.84.13.241) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 17:31:28 +0000 X-CornellRouted: This message has been Routed already. Received: from authusersmtp.mail.cornell.edu (granite3.serverfarm.cornell.edu [10.16.197.8]) by limerock01.mail.cornell.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4_cu) with ESMTP id vBDHVQKJ021346 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 12:31:26 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.4] (mta-68-175-129-7.twcny.rr.com [68.175.129.7] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by authusersmtp.mail.cornell.edu (8.14.4/8.12.10) with ESMTP id vBDHVOcg009444 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 12:31:25 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH setup 00/14] Use libsolv, solve all our problems... (WIP) To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com References: <20170531105015.162228-1-jon.turney@dronecode.org.uk> <488ba627-de58-ddc7-7f69-696adae76b8a@cornell.edu> <7a173f99-a2e1-a07c-a9df-5bebcf377957@cornell.edu> <87poau9znx.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <050204e5-0ed3-8e47-3825-58ec6a10f44f@cornell.edu> <87ingltcn0.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <4ed6c549-dddd-fc45-3ed8-f7339548d7cd@cornell.edu> From: Ken Brown Message-ID: <1ec0f4de-380f-c6d1-59e7-03570f36b80b@cornell.edu> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 17:31:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-PMX-Cornell-Gauge: Gauge=XXXXX X-PMX-CORNELL-AUTH-RESULTS: dkim-out=none; X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-12/txt/msg00068.txt.bz2 On 12/5/2017 9:32 AM, Jon Turney wrote: > It seems we're missing something to actually apply the default solution, > so "accept default solutions" makes no changes, at the moment. (looks > like we have to do this ourselves with solver_take_solution() ?) I've just looked at this again, and I'm not sure what's happening. Here's what I tried: I had two installed packages A and B, where A requires B. I tried to uninstall B and got the expected problem report telling me that A requires B. The solutions presented were 1. Uninstall A. 2. Don't uninstall B. On the surface, it would seem that libsolv chose 2 by default, because it returned an empty transaction list. This was reflected in the log and was also clear when I selected 'Back'. On the other hand, maybe libsolv's default was to do nothing, and it's just a coincidence that this coincided with solution 2. This could have tricked me into thinking that libsolv chose a default solution. > Also, in the dependency problem report, we should identify which of the > possible solutions is the default one, so it's clearer what "accept > default solutions" is going to do. Is there in fact a default solution? I skimmed through problems.c in the libsolv sources, and I didn't see any mention of a default solution. Maybe we have to deal with this situation ourselves. Whenever a problem involves a missing dependency, we could choose as default solution the one that installs/keeps the dependent package, as is currently done. Ken