> (As an aside, I don't like the term "SAT solving" for the problem of package version selection. By focusing on an implementation detail, it makes the problem

> (As an aside, I don't like the term "SAT solving" for the problem of package version selection. By focusing on an implementation detail, it makes the problem seem scarier than it actually is. Register allocation is NP hard too, but nobody calls the register allocator "the SAT solver".) I don't quite get your criticism here. Russ's Minimal Version Selection algorithm is a package version selection algorithm that does not require SAT solving. Your wording sounds like Russ wrote something like “Package version selection is inherently SAT, so we won't do that ever!”, but he did exactly the opposite by introducing MVS. Maybe you meant that you don't like the term for “Cargo-like package version selection”, but that's a completely different story.