| 1 |
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 01:26:46PM +0100, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 22:40:08 +0000 |
| 4 |
> > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@×××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> Is the following set sufficient? Is the following set the least |
| 6 |
> >> restrictive correct solution? |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > ... to explain the implications of these... |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Say we have packages a, b and c, and none of them have any |
| 11 |
> > dependencies. One valid solution to the build ordering is as follows: |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > * Install a |
| 14 |
> > * Install b |
| 15 |
> > * Install c |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > One of many solutions that is *not* valid is: |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > * Start doing a, b and c in parallel. Install them as they become |
| 20 |
> > ready, doing only one merge at once. |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > Another that is not valid is: |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > * Start doing a, b and c in parallel, but don't merge them. |
| 25 |
> > * Merge a. |
| 26 |
> > * Merge b. |
| 27 |
> > * Merge c. |
| 28 |
> > |
| 29 |
> > One that is valid is: |
| 30 |
> > |
| 31 |
> > * Build binary packages for a, b and c in parallel. |
| 32 |
> > * Merge a's binary. |
| 33 |
> > * Merge b's binary. |
| 34 |
> > * Merge c's binary. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> What exactly is the difference between this valid situation and the previous |
| 37 |
> invalid one? |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
The state of the environment when pkg_setup is run. In the first |
| 40 |
situation you can't trust it (it is racy and unpredictable among other |
| 41 |
things). In the second one, you can. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
That's the first thing that I can think of, there might be others. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
- ferdy |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
-- |
| 48 |
Fernando J. Pereda Garcimartín |
| 49 |
20BB BDC3 761A 4781 E6ED ED0B 0A48 5B0C 60BD 28D4 |
Archives