On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 13:56 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 02:10:28PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote: > >On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 10:22 +0100, Gordan Bobic wrote: > > > >> Is there a script already available that generates a package dependency > >> tree from src.rpms? At the moment, rebuilding a distro is quite > >> inefficient because for each mock run the setup takes a non-trivial > >> amount of time. What I'm thinking about doing is writing a script that > >> generates a dependency tree which can then be used, for example, to > >> generate a Makefile. That would allow for building all the packages in > >> the correct order with no wasted time on multiple passes in which most > >> package builds fail due to dependencies. > >> > >> Anyway, my question is, before I set out to write it, is there such a > >> script already? > > > >There are several attempts at this, including something DJ put together > >during the F15 bootstrap, and e.g. rpmgraph but there isn't a real > >solution to the problem of the kind that we will need longer term. > > > >The real solution to this problem necessitates changing packages to add > >explicit bootstrap dependencies to them. That is the only way to do this > >properly. Otherwise you have to do what we did in the early stages to > >get going. A real fix (that I have raised initially and will be more > >vocal about - thanks for the indirect ping) is to regularly > >automatically bootstrap Fedora using automation, and bootstrap deps. > >Then we should notify package maintainers who break the ability to > >bootstrap in adding hundreds of deps to the minimal set (I'm looking at > >systemd as an example that would have perhaps caused such a reaction). > > As Jon know, this is very like the process we're working on in Debian > as well. Ok. You get to hear this just once ;) I'm sufficiently envious of the approach Debian is using for bootstrap that I want it fixed in Fedora. There, now let us never speak of that again :P > Our normal philosophy of building most packages with all > features enabled is useful, but can make bootstrapping difficult. > There are some common bootstrapping loops where it's impossible to > simply find the correct order for package builds, so the best answer > is to build cut-down bootstrap versions of packages and use them as a > base for satisfying build dependencies until everything is fulfilled > properly. See > > http://wiki.debian.org/DebianBootstrap > > for more details. Right. This is the correct approach we should be adopting generally, and not just for ARM. I would like it if after we some world domination sorted we could clean up by automating bootstrap builds on a few builders that can sit and make sure bootstrapping always works. Jon. _______________________________________________ arm mailing list arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
