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 1IrYRF-00059B-WC for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:30:50 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with SMTP id lACCTwPK003287; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:29:58 GMT Received: from pollux.sshunet.nl (pollux.sshunet.nl [145.97.192.42]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with ESMTP id lACCS461000952 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:28:04 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pollux.sshunet.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EC2A58002D for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:28:04 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at pollux.warande.net Received: from pollux.sshunet.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (pollux.sshunet.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id svG-Y87p+qpT for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:28:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from [145.97.222.65] (65pc222.sshunet.nl [145.97.222.65]) by pollux.sshunet.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:28:04 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47384686.8030506@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:26:46 +0100 From: "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070802) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Phase invariancy and exclusivity requirements References: <20071109224008.7f946930@blueyonder.co.uk> <20071111195654.15666780@blueyonder.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20071111195654.15666780@blueyonder.co.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 91d7b776-186b-49a8-a3ac-4b66aeafbfd3 X-Archives-Hash: 8aecae978aa6193f62b6fbffe8bf6d23 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > 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. What exactly is the difference between this valid situation and the previous invalid one? Marijn - -- Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML , #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