(author of the paper here)

My sibling makes a great point about type errors: did you know Cargo (Rust) only supports diamond dependencies where the versions differ only in major version[^0]? So you can have exactly the same problem with B depending on D@v1.1 and C depending on D@v1.2 in Cargo. I believe the reason for only supporting concurrent versions with different major versions (to use the paper's parlance) is because packages with different major versions should have incompatible APIs anyway.

[^0]: Or 0 major version and differing minor version -- Cargo has it's own definition of semver incompatible

> ... and it becomes a pseudo SAT problem in some cases if you want optimal dependency resolution

A couple of clarifications: many dependency resolution algorithms are essentially SAT even if they support concurrent versions (see Cargo). Section 3.3 of the paper might be an interesting read -- it discusses the spectrum of complexity in the problem of dependency resolution, and why some ecosystem's approaches don't work for others. Also, it's generally a 'pseudo SAT problem' (i.e. NP-complete and can be reduced to SAT) to find any valid resolution, not just an optimal one.

> This is the core algorithmic and architectural limit on package managers. Almost everything else is just implementation and engineering details.

I agree, and that's why the paper focuses on the semantics of dependency expression and dependency resolution! But there's a lot more than concurrent versions in the semantics of how package managers express and resolve dependencies, i.e. features, formula, peer dependencies. The point of the paper is that there's a minimal common core that we can use to translate between package management ecosystems, which we're planning on using to build useful tooling to bridge multilingual dependency resolution.

> So you can have exactly the same problem with B depending on D@v1.1 and C depending on D@v1.2 in Cargo. I believe the reason for only supporting concurrent versions with different major versions (to use the paper's parlance) is because packages should have incompatible APIs anyway.

Presumably you mean compatible rather than incompatible there?

The rust ecosystem standardised on semver. This means it is perfectly allowed to use 1.2 in place of 1.1. While you can specify upper bounds for the depdnency ranges, that is extremely uncommon in practice. Instead the bounds are just “1.1 or newer semver compatible" etc.

See https://semver.org/ for more on semver (but do note that Rust uses a variation, where it also applies to the leading non-zero component of 0.x).