On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>
> Just FYI: The eventual "forward" looking solution @rpm5.org is gonna
> be to just scrap rpmtsOrder() and replace with an incremental topological
> sort done as a side effect of adding an install/erase package to a
> transaction, and with LOOP de
On Feb 1, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>
> I think you're crazy attempting prioritized package ordering. ;-)
>
Your conception of "priority" isn't the right design imho. For starters,
there's all sorts of legacy compatibility issues buried here:
+static const evrFlags orderPriorit
On Feb 1, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
> I've tried to make a first attempt at resolving dependency loops using
> the specific dependency type as hint for ordering.
>
> The patch attached will try attempt resolving the loops by removing
> one kind of dependency type (based on wha
I've tried to make a first attempt at resolving dependency loops using
the specific dependency type as hint for ordering.
The patch attached will try attempt resolving the loops by removing
one kind of dependency type (based on what seems likely to be the
most important kind of dependency wrt. ord
