From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IrIyq-0005ye-7k for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:00:28 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with SMTP id lABJxOGD017013; Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:59:24 GMT Received: from smtp.ferdyx.org (170.Red-213-96-222.staticIP.rima-tde.net [213.96.222.170]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with ESMTP id lABJvVPQ014692 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:57:32 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ferdyx.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C1208D829 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:59:16 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at ferdyx.org Received: from smtp.ferdyx.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tungsteno.ferdyx.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NeH6BPuIdQSl for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:59:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (unknown [213.121.151.206]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.ferdyx.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60CCD8D828 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:58:43 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:56:54 +0000 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Phase invariancy and exclusivity requirements Message-ID: <20071111195654.15666780@blueyonder.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20071109224008.7f946930@blueyonder.co.uk> References: <20071109224008.7f946930@blueyonder.co.uk> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.12.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/TJlHeu18qMuby75taR4czTB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: 8f36cb6e-14b4-4edf-94d4-6251a36c5b16 X-Archives-Hash: b1f133d0ebc585e535130648a433f2f2 --Sig_/TJlHeu18qMuby75taR4czTB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 22:40:08 +0000 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Is the following set sufficient? Is the following set the least > restrictive correct solution? ... to explain the implications of these... Say we have packages a, b and c, and none of them have any dependencies. One valid solution to the build ordering is as follows: * Install a * Install b * Install c One of many solutions that is *not* valid is: * Start doing a, b and c in parallel. Install them as they become ready, doing only one merge at once. Another that is not valid is: * Start doing a, b and c in parallel, but don't merge them. * Merge a. * Merge b. * Merge c. One that is valid is: * Build binary packages for a, b and c in parallel. * Merge a's binary. * Merge b's binary. * Merge c's binary. Another trickier situation. Say a-1 is installed, and a-2 and b are targets, and b deps upon a (any version). By the rules given, this is allowed: * Build binary packages for a-2 and b in parallel. * Merge a-2's binary (and clean a-1). * Merge b's binary. The situation becomes a whole lot more fun when, for example, we have ten packages with interdependencies, and we only want to build at most three things at once. That's why it pretty much has to be defined in terms of invariancies and exclusivities rather than by listing a small set of permitted algorithms. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/TJlHeu18qMuby75taR4czTB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHN16G96zL6DUtXhERAnuYAJ0XJDWZH+m+xL9TN+UFB+LYjJDt2ACgz208 tvVcuNMZsd7QEwqYMOLpo/I= =I86k -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/TJlHeu18qMuby75taR4czTB-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list