mamba: Mamba solving error messages feedback
This is issue is meant to collect feedback on the experimental error messages for statisfiability errors (package conflicts).
You ended up here because you set experimental_sat_error_message in your config.
We are looking for more example of conflicts in the ecosystem that are not well explained with the current implementation. Especially edge cases such as:
- Multi-channel conflicts,
- Update conflicts,
- Constraints conflicts (
run_constrainedin conda recipes), - Missing/outdated virtual packages (those starting with
__that must be present on the system), - Large build variants.
We are also gathering feedback on the current form of the messages.
- Is the wording correct / intelligible? Can it be improved?
- Is the tree an adequate representation? Is it too detailed? Not detailed enough?
- Should we show information about the build variants/string?
- Is the way we present conflict appropriate? The tricky things with conflicts (as opposed to missing packages) is that their are not an isolated problem, they forbid that two packages be installed at the same time, but each of them could be installed individually. The way we deal with it is that the first time we encounter a conflict, we say we can install the package, then the second time, we say it is a conflict.
Please also share things that you like as well, so they don’t get removed for lack of support.
Please share feedback/example with the latest version of mamba/micromamba and report the version in your message (for history).
About this issue
- Original URL
- State: closed
- Created 2 years ago
- Comments: 22 (12 by maintainers)
Thanks @johnhany97 for the feedback. With https://github.com/mamba-org/mamba/pull/2149 (WIP), we’ll have:
Today I tried to run
micromamba install -n my_env "python 3.9.*" "python 3.10.*" -c conda-forgeto look at what the errors looked like but got this interesting result:Notably, we seem to lose the information about python 3.9.* in the tree