why is that obvious?

because for any given advertised conda feature, it is more likely that it's broken in some way than not

That is not an answer. That is just a wrong FUD-style statement that your repeat over and over again, showing your personal frustration with things your are to lazy, impatient, or unflexible to deal with. And it applies to every bit of code. Certainly yours as well.

your personal frustration with things your are to lazy, impatient, or unflexible to deal with

ok. so I will from now on let you acquire your own personal frustration with conda, which you are presumably not too lazy, impatient, or unflexible to fix.

How would that help? It would be better if you just bite the bullet, swallow your pride and frustration, get stuff done, and fix things instead of all that lamenting.
I am willing to look into the dependency issue. That's why I asked the question.

It would be better if you just bite the bullet, swallow your pride and frustration, get stuff done, and fix things instead of all that lamenting.

If you haven't noticed, I've spent many days, maybe weeks, debugging and working around conda issues, a considerable part of which was spent reading conda sources as well as hunting for rationale behind their many strange decisions. This, as well as experience with many other package managers, is exactly why I say with such confidence that it is badly designed, implemented, and maintained. The reason behind my suggestion is for you to gain valuable perspective by going through the same path. It's great that you will do that!

And I have already handled conda issues that you were too lazy or too frustrated to deal with. Let's not start a pissing contest here. The point is that stuff needs to get done. Don't be cynical and try to keep the generic statements to yourself if they don't add any value to the topic.