For centos, we found that loops almost always depend on one of a handful of low level packages, e.g. bash, python, gcc, rpm We had two ways to try and deal with this. 1) Allow the use of a pre-compiled binary from upstream to satisfy the dependency when the StarlingX modification are unlikely to affect how dependent packages compile. Packages in the 'mock' lst files could satisfy this type of requirement. e.g. A=bash So in your example, compile order would be: F (vs upstream A), D (vs upstream A), C, B, A 2) Use a different 'build-type'... other than 'std' or 'rt' ... when the modified StarlingX package was likely to affect the output of dependent packages. Compile packages in that build type first. e.g. A=rpm = build-type 'installer' compile order would be: A (vs upstream binaries) B and C ... call this A-intermediate = build-type 'std' compile order would be: F (vs A-intermediate), D (vs A-intermediate), C, B, A Scott On 2021-09-18 2:50 a.m., Zhang, Xiao wrote:
Hi,
We are trying to construct basic environment for porting starlingX on Debian. While when I dealing with the build order of user space packages, the loop dependent problem blocked me.
The easiest example: source package A build depend on B while B is also build depend on A. We can just build A, B, A, B and only use the later result.
A fairly complex example: A depends on B and C, B depends on D, C depends on F, D depends on A and F. In this case there will be three cycles as below:
A->B->D->A, A->B->D->F->A, A->C->F->A . Even more, if in some cases we needn't B or D, then we have only one cycle: ACFA
I tried to find a method to deal with it but failed.
So I wonder how did we deal with such loop dependent before, on CentOS. Any advises about it?
Thanks a lot
Xiao
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss