Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

_solve_..slot_conflicts: make "forced" set recursive (bug 632210) #211

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 29, 2017

Conversation

zmedico
Copy link
Member

@zmedico zmedico commented Sep 29, 2017

When the slot conflict solver decides that it is "forced"
to choose a particular package, recursively force the
dependencies as well. Prior to this fix, substitution of
@world in the arguments for SlotConflictMaskUpdateTestCase
caused the test to fail because the solver removed
boost-build-1.53.0 from the graph event though it had
added the parent boost-1.53.0 package to the "forced"
set.

X-Gentoo-bug: 632210
X-Gentoo-bug-url: https://bugs.gentoo.org/632210

@zmedico zmedico force-pushed the bug_632210 branch 2 times, most recently from e52ea9f to 4e3188e Compare September 29, 2017 07:24
When the slot conflict solver decides that it is "forced"
to choose a particular package, recursively force the
dependencies as well. Prior to this fix, substitution of
@world in the arguments for SlotConflictMaskUpdateTestCase
caused the test to fail because the solver removed
boost-build-1.53.0 from the graph event though it had
added the parent boost-1.53.0 package to the "forced"
set.

X-Gentoo-bug: 632210
X-Gentoo-bug-url: https://bugs.gentoo.org/632210
Acked-by: Brian Dolbec <dolsen@gentoo.org>
Fix the slot conflict solver to use the _want_installed_pkg
method to identify installed packages that are intended to
be reinstalled for some reason (such as @preserved-rebuild).

X-Gentoo-bug: 632202
X-Gentoo-bug-url: https://bugs.gentoo.org/632202
Acked-by: Brian Dolbec <dolsen@gentoo.org>
@gentoo-bot gentoo-bot merged commit d82bf7c into gentoo:master Sep 29, 2017
@zmedico zmedico deleted the bug_632210 branch October 13, 2017 17:13
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants