[Pulp-dev] Pulp RPM dependency solver refactoring dilemma

[Justin Sherrill]

On 06/26/2018 11:30 AM, Milan Kovacik wrote:
> Folks,
>
> TL;DR should we support alternative solvers (configuration) during
> recursive unit association?
>
> I've been refactoring the current approach to RPM dependency solving
> for e.g the recursive copy to be able to handle rich dependencies[1].
>
> While testing, I ran into an dependency issue that is caused by me not
> processing file-provides records correctly[2].
>
> No matter the current insufficiency in my coding, a user trying to
> copy stuff from a repo with libsolv-unresolvable dependencies might
> hit similar issues and consider them regressions from previous
> behavior, hence the question:
>
> Should the user be able to select a solver (configuration) for
> particular associate call thru the REST API?
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?

I would also like to point out this issue to keep in mind: 
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2478

Justin


>
> Cheers,
> milan
>
>
> [1] https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1122
> [2] https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1122#issuecomment-400061802
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev