From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.chez-thomas.org (hermes.mlbassoc.com [64.234.241.98]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D063EE01371 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:13:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix, from userid 1998) id 79B42F811EB; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:13:00 -0700 (MST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on hermes.chez-thomas.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=4.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 Received: from hermes.chez-thomas.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E137EF811E9; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:12:58 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <4F1CB41A.301@mlbassoc.com> Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:12:58 -0700 From: Gary Thomas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Abernathy References: <56375FA8-BB1F-4D3B-91EC-C84665DF9905@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <56375FA8-BB1F-4D3B-91EC-C84665DF9905@gmail.com> Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: tar ball vs. git development questions X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:13:03 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2012-01-22 13:19, James Abernathy wrote: > I have used both git and the tarball methods of bitbaking projects, all of them derivatives of the examples in the Yocto documentation. I was having issues using the local clone of > the Yocto kernel git repository this weekend. I had successfully done that before, but I was rebuilding the PC workstation, and getting everything setup and tested some of the > meta-intel BSPs to make sure I had everything right. Cloning the linux-yocto-3.0 repository was successful, but the bakes against it failed. I made sure I had poky-extras setup > right, but I still had problems. To isolate the problem, I changed to building with the tarballs and everything worked fine. > > So that got me thinking what are the differences between the 2 methods: > > * I assume that if I use the tarball method, bitbake, using the recipes, pulls down files from the online repositories and puts those files into the centralized local download > directory ($DL_DIR), allowing reuse instead of re-downloading each time. The content downloaded for linux-yocto-3.0 is exactly what would be pulled from the local repository if > I used a local clone of the git repository for linux-yocto-3.0. > * If my assumption above is correct, if I'm not modifying the source code of the kernel (only changing config parameters), then once you've run at least one build with the > tarball method, the $DL_DIR directory contains all the files you'll need to build any image with linux-yocto-3.0. So there is no need to have a local clone of the kernel > repository for speeding up development. Am I right? > * If I have a successful creation of a bare clone of linux-yocto-3.0.git, how could builds of Edison packages be failing? That makes me concerned about using git and successfully > repeating builds of stable branches like Edison. If you set BB_GENERATE_MIRROR_TARBALLS = "1" (e.g. in local.conf) then you'll get tarballs which hold the git repositories after download. You can then reuse these (by sharing the DL_DIR or using a local mirror). Does that help with the issue you're seeing? -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Gary Thomas | Consulting for the MLB Associates | Embedded world ------------------------------------------------------------