Fixing the packages, is probably the way to go.
You could also create pseudo package D which is available in several
versions.
Package D-1.0c: Package D is depending on nothing
Package D-1.0bc: Package D is depending on B
Package C is always dependent on Package D and A.
Package B
On 2012-05-07 14:33, Radek Dostal wrote:
On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 06:02 -0600, Gary Thomas wrote:
On 2012-05-07 05:54, Radek Dostal wrote:
Dear All,
I have three intree recipes A, B and C which are part of the same layer.
= B depends on A
= C depends on A.
There is no dependency between B
Not sure if it applies, but if all build dirs share the same
configuration step, you could create a single recipe and split the
results into more packages.
On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 23:23 +0200, Radek Dostal wrote:
On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 15:08 -0600, Gary Thomas wrote:
I think that your recipes are
Dear All,
I have three intree recipes A, B and C which are part of the same layer.
= B depends on A
= C depends on A.
There is no dependency between B and C. Only important thing is that B
and C are not build simultaneously. This is not a problem unless I use
configure BB_NUMBER_THREADS 1. Than
On 2012-05-07 05:54, Radek Dostal wrote:
Dear All,
I have three intree recipes A, B and C which are part of the same layer.
= B depends on A
= C depends on A.
There is no dependency between B and C. Only important thing is that B
and C are not build simultaneously. This is not a problem
On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 06:02 -0600, Gary Thomas wrote:
On 2012-05-07 05:54, Radek Dostal wrote:
Dear All,
I have three intree recipes A, B and C which are part of the same layer.
= B depends on A
= C depends on A.
There is no dependency between B and C. Only important thing is that
On Monday, May 7, 2012, Radek Dostal r...@radekdostal.com wrote:
On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 06:02 -0600, Gary Thomas wrote:
On 2012-05-07 05:54, Radek Dostal wrote:
Dear All,
I have three intree recipes A, B and C which are part of the same
layer.
= B depends on A
= C depends on A.
On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 08:46 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
usually it crashes during ln -sf target dest which is executed
simultaneously with same parameters for both builds. There are other
issues as well in addition to this ln issue.
This is confusing why does this happen at all
Because ln
On 2012-05-07 15:01, Radek Dostal wrote:
On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 08:46 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
usually it crashes during ln -sf target dest which is executed
simultaneously with same parameters for both builds. There are other
issues as well in addition to this ln issue.
This is confusing why
On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 15:08 -0600, Gary Thomas wrote:
I think that your recipes are not well behaved - two recipes probably
should not be creating the same file in such a way.
Can you post the recipes, or at least the code snippets that break?
I agree usually it should not be a case, but
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Radek Dostal r...@radekdostal.com wrote:
Because ln -sf first do symlink(1) unlink(2) and symlink(3) again. In
case link is created by another process between 2 and 3 than ln fails.
It is quite well described here:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Radek Dostal r...@radekdostal.com wrote:
Because ln -sf first do symlink(1) unlink(2) and symlink(3) again. In
case link is created by another process between 2 and 3 than ln fails.
It is quite well described here:
12 matches
Mail list logo
