Re: [gentoo-dev] Phase invariancy and exclusivity requirements

["Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <hkBst@gentoo.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 22:40:08 +0000
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@blueyonder.co.uk> 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.

What exactly is the difference between this valid situation and the previous
invalid one?

Marijn

- --
Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML
<http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-{lisp,ml} on FreeNode
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHOEaGp/VmCx0OL2wRAlShAKCNohJzGNppNM7LFgHT/ID/9AyVjwCeJhlM
vGHuzGLLa/+Oyj1t2T1KTP4=
=TKhb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list