[pacman-dev] Some comments on Bryan patches (bugs)
ngaba at bibl.u-szeged.hu
Sun Mar 8 09:42:51 EDT 2009
> >> sync993 does not exist in the pacman sources. If it did, I would have
> >> seen this problem and addressed it.
> > That's why I posted it here :) I've just created it to show the problem.
> > (I like pactests, because we can test our patches easily with them.)
> Oh, I see, I was confused about that. I will add your sync993.py file
> to my own change to fix the issue if you don't mind.
I don't mind. :)
> >> I will get back to you on this once
> >> I have figured out what's going on (I suspect that it's a difference in
> >> the way the new resolve code works, it may stop too short now to figure
> >> out that there is a 'better' package to choose for resolving the
> >> dependency).
> > In the old code, resolvedeps got the whole target list, now it gets only
> > the first (already resolved) part of that list.
> Well I've examined this issue in more detail and it's quite complicated.
> Basically, the old code (before my change) used to first check to see if
> any package in the list of packages to upgrade satisfied a dependency
> before going out to look for a package to resolve the dependency in the
> sync database.
> The new code doesn't do that, it resolves each package individually
> without regards to the target list of packages to upgrade.
> The old code hade the nice side benefit of allowing a user to "force"
> which package to use to satisfy a dependency by putting that package on
> the command line. This is the behavior that you are testing with your
> sync993.py test.
> The new code resolves each package individually and independently of the
> target-list. It is for this reason that the first package found during
> resolve, the one in the sync database, is being used instead of the one
> on that target-list, so pkg2 is getting pulled in to satisfy a
> dependency of pkg1 that pkg3 would also have satisfied, and pkg3 is also
> getting installed because it's in the target-list.
The "already-resolved" target list (== *packages list) is checked first.
So the resolving is not independent from the target list, however, it is
true that resolvedeps cannot see the *whole* target list now. For
example, if you change the command line to "-S pkg3 pkg1" in my pactest,
it will pass. (Btw, the order of packages in the target list should not
affect the result of resolvedeps!)
> Unfortunately, the obvious fix of first looking through the target list
> for packages which can resolve dependencies does not work - because it
> might find packages which satisfy the dependency but which themselves
> have not yet been resolved. And if it then uses those unresolved
> packages to satisfy dependencies, and later on it is discovered that
> those packages are not themselves resolvable (because of
> IgnorePkg/IgnoreGroup), then the result will be the inclusion of
> unresolvable packages in the transaction, which then fails.
> A shorter way to say this is: we cannot resolve dependencies just by
> looking in the target-list to find them, because the target-list
> packages have not necessarily been resolved yet, and we can only resolve
> dependencies with packages which themselves have been resolved.
I don't see the problem. Then resolvedeps will "recursively" resolve the
pulled package from target list without any code modification, and when
we want to resolve that package (in a new resolvedeps call from
sync_prepare), resolvedeps will detect that the package is already in
I mean, you may want to add a new param, "lookfirst" (== target list).
However, I hoped that you have a nicer idea, that's why I didn't send a
> A question: is the behavior of first searching the target-list for
> packages to satisfy dependencies a documented and expected behavior of
Not documented, but expected :). Moreover, see my comment above about
the current asymmetric behavior, that is quite odd imho.
-- new suggestions :) [optional] --
3. Now it can happen, that a missing dependency is added to the *data
list many times. For example, if there is a popular unresolvable package
in our repo, let's say gtk2, and we have 10 packages in the target list
depend on that, then we get "gtk2 requires foo" error 10 times (if user
doesn't want to remove unresolvable packages). So we may want to check
*data list before adding a new missing dependency to avoid duplication.
4. One more comment (I've just realised this during writing the previous
one). I never liked our unresolvable dependencies errors:
User does "pacman -S foo1 foo2 foo3" and he may get "error: bar requires
baz", and he says "What?". Now, after your patch we can easily say, what
package "induced" that error (pkg param of resolvedeps). We have a field
causingpkg in pmdepmissing_t, we may want to use that for this purpose.
(With -R that field has an other meaning, so this may be not a good
idea.) Or we can print this info via PM_TRANS_CONV_REMOVE_PKGS.
If we implement 4., we can forget 3. Ovbiously, if you don't like these
ideas, you have nothing to do :) (There are no bugs here.)
More information about the pacman-dev