[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tycho-dev] [discuss] tycho repository layout and metadata format
- From: "Oberlies, Tobias" <tobias.oberlies@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:15:02 +0200
- Accept-language: en-US, de-DE
- Acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Thread-index: AcwsDvzbHO5+9uvSSDSYIw7q3MtqQgABoneQ
- Thread-topic: [tycho-dev] [discuss] tycho repository layout and metadata format
> > Sorry. IMHO using something non-deterministic (like the p2 planner on
> > a mutable p2 repository) and then adding constraints to it will _not_
> > yield a reproducible build.
> It will work if there is only one possible solution to the problem. So
> it is theoretically possible to start with non-deterministic target
> platform and add enough constraints to essentially make all dependencies
> strict. I ran some prototypes couple of years ago. If project target
> platform is defined in terms of eclipse features, for example, then
> number of additional constraints necessary to make resolution fully
> reproducible is relatively small.
But we are obviously talking about different ways of "defining in terms of features".
If you feed feature IUs into a PermissiveSlicer with considerOnlyStrictDependency=true, the resolution is reproducible without any additional constraints.
If you want to be able to feed your target platform configuration into a normal Slicer, you need to additionally define the versions of all non-strictly required IUs. We had implemented this approach for our proprietary build system, but we found it failing recently when a feature patch was added to a p2 repository. (I still need to report this as p2 bug ...).