Re: [meta-raspberrypi][PATCH] firmware.inc: fetch from SVN instead of Git

[Andrei Gherzan <andrei@gherzan.ro>]

Hi,

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 09:59:30AM -0600, Gary Thomas wrote:
> On 2015-07-19 15:34, Andrei Gherzan wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >--
> >Andrei Gherzan
> >
> >On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 7:53 PM, Jon Szymaniak <jon.szymaniak@gmail.com <mailto:jon.szymaniak@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >    Hi all,
> >
> >        >
> >        > So there is no support for depth clones until 2.5.0? I didn't really
> >        > understand.
> >
> >        Well, shallow clones are supported but only for branch tips, which is
> >        not what we need. This feature for shallow cloning a specific revision
> >        is available only in git 2.5.0+. Also, this feature needs a server-side
> >        configuration option to be enabled, in order to work properly.
> >
> >        Regards,
> >        Nikolay
> >
> >
> >    I'd argue that this whole issue with the whole meta-raspberrypi firmware.inc download is more than just slow, inconvenient download.  I've left builds running all night (8+
> >    hours on a 30Mib/s residential link) that just hang on this, usually timing out.  I initially thought it was just me, but am hearing others confirm this as well.
> >
> >    As such, I just wanted to continue this conversation.  It sounds like git fetch's --depth is the best option on the table, but has the issues Nikolay has described.  What are
> >    your thoughts on the following?
> >
> >    (1) We create a git-native and build a version that supports this the fetch depth?
> >
> >    I suspect this could be made to work, but haven't dug into what dependencies git may have and how that would play out on various LTS distros. My knee-jerk is that has too high
> >    of a risk/benefit ration, given that we're talking about 1 repo.
> >
> >    (2) We update the git fetcher to check the git version and support a depth= option if the git version is sufficient.  If it is not, we spit out a warning and fall back to the
> >    current behavior.
> >
> >    Neither (1) nor (2) address Nikolay's point that --depth requires server-side support.  However, I'd argue this is something you'd be testing and verifying when writing the
> >    recipe.  Is this a reasonable assertion? How likely is it that a server supporting this would suddenly be re-configured?
> >
> >    (3) We request that the upstream maintainer of meta-raspberrypi use the GitHub Release feature [a] to post a tarball of a known checksum at somewhat regular intervals.  I'm
> >    told by a few package maintainers that while the tarballs that it generates for specific changesets are subject to change, that the tarballs it autogenerates when using its
> >    Releases feature do not.  However, I have not confirmed this.  If this is false, then one can upload a tarball with known checksums to the release as an attachment; I would be
> >    *shocked* if they touch your attachments.
> >
> >    While (3) is a nice "not our problem" solution, I think (2) might have some benefits for other recipes later.  Any other ideas?
> >
> >
> >Definitely 2 is the best opinion in my opinion too. I'm wondering if there is any work started in this direction.
> >
>
> It would sure be nice to get this fixed!  The latest download
> (I always save the tarballs for the next time) is over 4GB!!
>

So what is the conlcusion on this? Should we switch on SVN temporary?

--
Andrei Gherzan