This is a fun article, but the whole "dependency resolution problem" is a bit of a wild goose chase anyway, because the underlying data you're basing it all on (what package authors publish as their version constraints) is only slightly better than junk. For a start, python (like most ecosystems) is very limited in its ability to express compatibility constraints - it's not even able to understand the concept of stable branches that receive backports.

Add to that most package authors putting about a second's thought into their version constraints, with other package authors being overzealous and for example thinking it's their duty to protect you from security vulnerabilities through their version constraints, and I frequently doubt the worth of putting all this SAT wizardry into these tools, as fun as it is.

I think this is a criticism about the general Python ecosystem, but the article has nothing to do with what other package authors do or security vulnerabilities etc. It converts SAT to “dependency resolution” by creating a bunch of dummy packages and dependencies that map back to the SAT instance. And it’s definitely just for fun, I highly doubt it’s useful except as an exercise in NP-complete reductions :)