On śro, 2017-05-31 at 19:39 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > Again, you *need* to process the constraints in order. '!a? > > > ( b ) !b? ( a )' is not deterministic when none of a and b are > > > enabled otherwise. > > > > You can't rely on any particular order of constraints, especially when > > eclass stacking comes into play. You could try defining some > > constraint- sorting algorithm but it's going to be complex and it's > > usefulness will be limited anyway due to various kinds of grouping. > > > Better have some order: If half of the above constraint comes from > ebuild and the other half comes from eclass, then PM might toggle 'a' or > 'b' depending on the phase of the moon which is specifically what we're > trying to avoid.
No, it can't. That's the whole point. The algorithm must be defined so that it is always predictable independently of order (maybe except the ordering inside ^^, ||, ??) and independently of how it's nested (i.e. 'a? ( b? ( c ) )' must give the same result as 'b? ( a? ( c ) )'). If you start relying on stuff like ordering, you're one step from making stuff suddenly fail or change meaning due to minor changes, like sorting stuff. > eclass stacking is not a problem: specify if it's append or prepend and > be done. What about multiple inherits with guards? Next thing I know, we end up putting REQUIRED_USE outside guards (like we have to do with EXPORT_FUNCTIONS now) because you need a specific order, and guards make it unpredictable. > Note that if you want to remove the need for an order, you'll need to > ensure that all orderings of the constraints give the same result. It's > not sufficient to "only" check all possible inputs. That's the matter of the algorithm. > Also, what happens if we applied all the constraints and obtained some > useflags setting that still fails REQUIRED_USE check ? It can't happen. If you can apply all the constraints, then implicitly REQUIRED_USE is satisfied. If you can't apply all the constraints, then it just fails. Of course, we want to ultimately avoid that case. > > The point would be: by definition, the solver should be able to touch > > *any* USE flag. If it can't, it mostly implies that you can't use > > the automatic solver, and so the case is irrelevant for checking. > > Attempting to go beyond that is going to give a lot of complexity > > and most likely kill the whole idea. > > > > One thing we need to worry about are masks. We need to think about > > them. > > It makes zero difference for any solver if you replace variables > (useflags) by 'true' or 'false' constants (masked/forced/user-forced > useflags). It's even simpler actually. Whether the formula is not > constantly 'true' (ie REQUIRED_USE is useless) or constantly > 'false' (ie there's no way to solve it) is equivalent to solving SAT. > We likely don't want that for repoman running on php. > Well, probably yes. We just need to make sure to apply them correctly in different contexts, to avoid accidentally skipping some constraints. I think it would be reasonably to assume that: a. flags masked/forced on LHS of implications (foo?) are evaluated in place, i.e. either always require RHS or remove it completely: foo? ( bar ) -> with foo forced, bar is always required => we should also force bar b. flags masked/forced inside ^^, ??, || alter the contents/meaning -- in particular they might replace the whole construct with a single flag or make it unsolvable: ^^ ( foo bar baz ) -> with foo forced, [bar baz] are never allowed => we should mask them || ( foo bar baz ) -> with foo forced, the constraint can be skipped c. flags masked/forced otherwise can't be altered: foo? ( bar ) -> with bar forced, we can skip the constraint. -> with bar masked, foo should be masked as well Does that cover all the contexts? -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part