1. 28 Jun, 2017 1 commit
  2. 26 Jun, 2017 7 commits
    • Karel Koci's avatar
      Describe dependencies in planner using equivalency · c64255db
      Karel Koci authored
      Using only implication is problematic if we add negation to chain. In
      such case its meaning isn't that it implies negative value, but that it
      doesn't imply. That is problem if we use use negative dependencies. New
      approach uses equivalency instead of implications. We used equivalency
      originally because formulas added to sat solver as dependencies of one
      package would introduced limitation on package even if original package
      isn't selected and that is wrong. Now instead of that we use formulas
      activators. It's variable that ensures that if it isn't set than
      formula is always true. Activator is package group or candidate for
      which given dependency is build. This way we are able to ignore
      dependency formulas that don't have to be activated because we don't
      choose that package.
      c64255db
    • Karel Koci's avatar
    • Karel Koci's avatar
    • Karel Koci's avatar
      1e383331
    • Karel Koci's avatar
      Multiple packages with Provides should be expected to be used · ee386e5c
      Karel Koci authored
      When we have two packages providing same package and both should be
      installed, than we should handle them the same way. Until now we have
      chosen first candidate that was selected and that was the one that we
      used. But that is problematic if we want to install both packages.
      
      This commit ensures that when we request a package that is provided by
      more than one other package than we pass modifier to both of those
      packages instead of random single one.
      ee386e5c
    • Karel Koci's avatar
      Don't expect candidates from other package group to be exclusive · e459518e
      Karel Koci authored
      Until now we were adding rule that only single candidate of given
      package can be installed at the time. But candidates added because of
      Provides directive shouldn't do that. That is completely separate
      package and we shouldn't be introducing any additional restriction.
      e459518e
    • Karel Koci's avatar
      Don't check version limitation with "Provides" candidates · 4944f52f
      Karel Koci authored
      If candidate isn't from given package group (was added because it
      provides that package) than we shouldn't be checking it against version
      limitation. Because what some version limitation says about some
      other package we don't know yet. If we specify version we should just
      ignore any candidate added using Provides.
      4944f52f
  3. 16 Jun, 2017 1 commit
    • Karel Koci's avatar
      Add conflicts feature · 8177c7c4
      Karel Koci authored
      I forgot to add it as feature. This change is impossible to detect so
      it should be added to features.
      8177c7c4
  4. 15 Jun, 2017 3 commits
  5. 12 Jun, 2017 2 commits
  6. 09 Jun, 2017 1 commit
  7. 08 Jun, 2017 2 commits
  8. 05 Jun, 2017 1 commit
    • Karel Koci's avatar
      Fix undefined variables · 35b663c1
      Karel Koci authored
      Probably as part of some last minute cleanup I had to remove some
      variables without replacing them where they were used.
      35b663c1
  9. 01 Jun, 2017 3 commits
  10. 19 May, 2017 1 commit
    • Karel Koci's avatar
      Copy critical from request to plan · 9b11c015
      Karel Koci authored
      Also this causes behavior that if package is requested critically and is
      provided by some other package then package that provides it is critical
      in plan.
      9b11c015
  11. 17 May, 2017 1 commit
  12. 09 May, 2017 4 commits
  13. 28 Apr, 2017 3 commits
  14. 26 Apr, 2017 6 commits
  15. 24 Apr, 2017 1 commit
  16. 20 Apr, 2017 3 commits