[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100517141857.GA5947@basil.fritz.box>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 16:18:57 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, Bart Massey <bart@...pdx.edu>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@...ah.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] GSoC project: Improving kconfig using a SAT solver
> You bring up a valid point, and I admittedly haven't given it VERY
> much thought yet, but I think that conflicts could be displayed in the
> following way: If an instance is unsolvable, then it means that all
> possible valuations/assignments make at least one clause (disjunction)
> false. Each clause is usually generated by exactly one dependency
> specification (the "depends on" directive), so we could print these
> dependencies to the screen as suggestions for how to resolve the
> conflict.
The problem is that might be a lot of entries, e.g. for "depends on PCI"
You then end up displaying pages and pages of information, which
is very hard to make sense of.
You can see that by playing around with libzypp dependencies.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists