Subject: Re: Builk build vs. p5-Test-Harness
To: Krister Walfridsson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Dan McMahill <dmcmahill@NetBSD.org>
Date: 06/28/2004 07:32:17
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 07:30:35PM +0200, Krister Walfridsson wrote:
> 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 helps though even in cases where its not png, but perhaps
kdelibs. Plus we still have a couple of issues. One is that
the order you install packages will give you a different set
of dependencies. For example installing perl-5.6.1 first or
installing perl-5.8 first.
> > 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...
I'll try to find some time to think through this, but no guarantees.