Subject: Re: Builk build vs. p5-Test-Harness
To: Dan McMahill <dmcmahill@NetBSD.org>
From: Krister Walfridsson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/23/2004 19:30:35
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Dan McMahill wrote:
> So the issue is that p5-Test-Harness is needed if you were using
> perl-5.6 but if you have perl-5.8, you do not need p5-Test-Harness?
> I much much rather somehow improve how the bulk code deals with
> these dependencies which depend on the order in which packages
> are installed.
> Depending on the package which failed, the bulk build can
> potentially spend lots and lots of time installing dependencies
> for packages which are doomed to fail.
> If something like perl, libtool, or libpng fails, the
> reduction in time is dramatic.
I'm not sure I think it's worth the effort to optimize for the
case where we have massive breakage... ;)
> It seems to me that the root problem is that we potentially
> have more than one valid dependency tree for a given package.
> Its some what goofy in that the dependency tree you get will
> depend on the order in which you happened to build packages.
> I'd like to see the bulk build system somehow decide which
> it will be up front. Then the problem you're having here
> should go away.
I agree. But I cannot find a painless way to implement this.
And we need a solution soon, since this issue makes nearly 2%
of the packages fail in the bulk builds...