On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 01:26:46PM +0100, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 22:40:08 +0000 > > Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?
The state of the environment when pkg_setup is run. In the first situation you can't trust it (it is racy and unpredictable among other things). In the second one, you can. That's the first thing that I can think of, there might be others. - ferdy -- Fernando J. Pereda Garcimartín 20BB BDC3 761A 4781 E6ED ED0B 0A48 5B0C 60BD 28D4
pgp0MO47jsszv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
