: thetango SRPM dependency system

[Prarit Bhargava]

Axel Thimm wrote:
> I see, good cheating ;)
>
>   

:o)

> You will probably have a couple of false positives from code that is
> not being installed.
>
>   

Interesting.  I'll keep that in mind.

>>> I guess that if thetango cannot compute the depdency then it probably
>>> gets discarded to at least get some better ordering, but the final
>>> build will still need a brute force iterative approach.
>>>       
>> Nope.  This absolutely is 100 times better than a brute force iterative 
>> approach.  IMO of course :)
>>     
>
> It's surely better, what I mean is you cannot avoid the final
> iterative approach, you can only provide a better ordered package list
> to start with.
>
> For example even when you can cheat a simulated build to find perl
> dependecnies, as well as many other script language depedencies, you
> will not be able to detect stuff needed for BuildRequires:
> %{_libdir}/libfoo.so, which as brain-daed as it looks it is sometimes
> needed when packages transition for not having *-devel to having
> one. I even have submitted such a package.
>
>   

Isn't there also a libtool that would figure that out as well?  As the 
code mentions I have not implemented it yet, but I intend to do so.

> But I agree, having an almost fully sorted filelist is 100x better than a
> random one.
>   

I'm going to return to  the system that I did the brute force build on 
this week.  It is only a 64p/128G box, and I'm going to write code that 
uses a bottom-up tree algorithm to build the RPMS.  I'd like to see how 
much faster having the sorted list is.

> How about the following addition idea: Does restating thetango on
> cached results with a couple different provides take up too much time?
> Probably not. In that case you could append such an incremental
> thetango call after each package is built and dynamically adjust the
> ordering while building getting an almost 100% correct ordering. But
> maybe it is already 95% good and the final 5% will be using brute
> force, so it would be not worth while to do dynamical adjustments.
>   
>   

Hmmm ... I haven't even considered that.  I'll add that to the TODO list. :)

P.