<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:04 PM, Justin Sherrill <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jsherril@redhat.com" target="_blank">jsherril@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span><br>
<br>
On 06/26/2018 11:30 AM, Milan Kovacik wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Folks,<br>
<br>
TL;DR should we support alternative solvers (configuration) during<br>
recursive unit association?<br>
<br>
I've been refactoring the current approach to RPM dependency solving<br>
for e.g the recursive copy to be able to handle rich dependencies[1].<br>
<br>
While testing, I ran into an dependency issue that is caused by me not<br>
processing file-provides records correctly[2].<br>
<br>
No matter the current insufficiency in my coding, a user trying to<br>
copy stuff from a repo with libsolv-unresolvable dependencies might<br>
hit similar issues and consider them regressions from previous<br>
behavior, hence the question:<br>
<br>
Should the user be able to select a solver (configuration) for<br>
particular associate call thru the REST API?<br>
</blockquote></span>
I commented on the PR, but i think the behavior we're seeing is okay and can be ignored (assuming we can still pull in the deps that are available).  Assuming we can, do we still need it to be configurable?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Turns out we can by simply ignoring the solver problems; might have as well investigated it yesterday ;)<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
I would also like to point out this issue to keep in mind: <a href="https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2478" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://pulp.plan.io/issues/24<wbr>78</a></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That behaviour is already addressed in the PR by the <a href="https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1122/files#diff-9c78b41ed1e2ec586589ed71d730b93eR56" target="_blank">solver considering the target repository content</a>.</div><div>I wonder whether I should set the issue state accordingly...</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
Justin<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
milan<br>
<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1122" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/pulp/pulp_r<wbr>pm/pull/1122</a><br>
[2] <a href="https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1122#issuecomment-400061802" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/pulp/pulp_r<wbr>pm/pull/1122#issuecomment-4000<wbr>61802</a><br>
<br></span>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Pulp-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com" target="_blank">Pulp-dev@redhat.com</a><br>
<a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman<wbr>/listinfo/pulp-dev</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Pulp-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com" target="_blank">Pulp-dev@redhat.com</a><br>
<a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman<wbr>/listinfo/pulp-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>