| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 22:40:08 +0000 |
| 6 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@×××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> Is the following set sufficient? Is the following set the least |
| 8 |
>> restrictive correct solution? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> ... to explain the implications of these... |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Say we have packages a, b and c, and none of them have any |
| 13 |
> dependencies. One valid solution to the build ordering is as follows: |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> * Install a |
| 16 |
> * Install b |
| 17 |
> * Install c |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> One of many solutions that is *not* valid is: |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> * Start doing a, b and c in parallel. Install them as they become |
| 22 |
> ready, doing only one merge at once. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Another that is not valid is: |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> * Start doing a, b and c in parallel, but don't merge them. |
| 27 |
> * Merge a. |
| 28 |
> * Merge b. |
| 29 |
> * Merge c. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> One that is valid is: |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> * Build binary packages for a, b and c in parallel. |
| 34 |
> * Merge a's binary. |
| 35 |
> * Merge b's binary. |
| 36 |
> * Merge c's binary. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
What exactly is the difference between this valid situation and the previous |
| 39 |
invalid one? |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Marijn |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
- -- |
| 44 |
Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML |
| 45 |
<http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-{lisp,ml} on FreeNode |
| 46 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 47 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) |
| 48 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
iD8DBQFHOEaGp/VmCx0OL2wRAlShAKCNohJzGNppNM7LFgHT/ID/9AyVjwCeJhlM |
| 51 |
vGHuzGLLa/+Oyj1t2T1KTP4= |
| 52 |
=TKhb |
| 53 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 54 |
-- |
| 55 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives