On 11/10/2007, Stefan Hundhammer
I see what you mean. We had that once, but this is really something that is very dangerous and thus not desirable in most cases.
The old package manager used to come up with a solution like "delete all conflicting packages" - getting rid of everything that depended on the package you marked for deletion.
While this can be useful in some very few cases, in many more cases it will leave you with a wrecked system.
Only if it is not made clear to the user. Currently the conflict resolution dialogue might display something like [ ] Do not install fooapp [ ] Remove barapp [ ] remove conflicting libbar [ ] change vendor of libfoo to <vendor> etc etc. The user is forced to make a decision, which will then force a new solver run, which might throw up another 10 or more issues that require manual intervention. It is indeed quite possible to even go round in loops, depending on which solutions the user chooses at each stage. This is very difficult for users who don't understand the package management internals. IMO a more preferable mode of operation to the user would be to perform a complete solver run and then propose it to the user, with the option to alter it if it's not correct. So where there is the option to remove a conflicting package/not install package/change vendor etc, the solver notes the choice and picks the most preferable version - e.g. vendor change is preferred over some other changes. If this choice does not lead to a solution the solver would have to backtrack & try one of the other solutions. Once an valid /complete/ solution is found it could be presented to the user as a summary: The following changes will be made: <Packages to be installed> <Packages to be removed> <Packages with vendor change> [ Accept ] [ Modify Proposal ] [ Cancel ] Obviously this is a lot more difficult to implement, but would be far more friendly. _ Benjamin Weber -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org