Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID:	<01c301c178c6$308dc660$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From:	"Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To:	"Charles Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Cc:	<cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
References:	<009401c178b4$0d3d92b0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <3C05FB2F DOT 2050409 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Subject:	Re: setup current problems
Date:	Thu, 29 Nov 2001 22:08:34 +1100
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-OriginalArrivalTime:	29 Nov 2001 11:09:58.0678 (UTC) FILETIME=[620A3B60:01C178C6]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
> I guess my earlier 'test' didn't really *test* what I thought it was
> testing...sorry for the trouble, folks.

No problem, all's forgiven 'cause you found a bug :}.

> BUT: the dependency loop NEEDS to be there -- becuase those packages
ARE
> mutually dependent.  It's just that setup needs to traverse the loop
> only once and terminate. :-)

It's actually a little harder than that. You need to either
a) limit the depth of recursion/stack growth
b) build a network of visited nodes and only recurse into unvisited
nodes.

I've implemented a), which has the downside that in corner cases, (in
this case, a chain 6 requires: statements long) packages may not get
grabbed. Mind you, this means that of those 7 packages, the user must
select ONLY the first one, and no other packages can require: any
package further down the chain than the 2nd one. I.e. not much of an
issue :}.

However b) is the proper solution IMO, but more time is needed to do it
right, so I'm leaving that for another day.

Rob

- Raw text -