From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:38:29 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 9/9] Add support for cloning Linux git trees In-Reply-To: References: <20081016203220.15826.26173.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20081016203301.15826.50075.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20081016211449.GE11249@mx.loc> Message-ID: <20081017073829.GA10738@mx.loc> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 05:09:13PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: >On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer > wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 02:33:01PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: >>>@@ -418,6 +447,7 @@ config BR2_LINUX26_VERSION >>> default "$(BR2_KERNEL_CURRENT_VERSION)"if BR2_LINUX_2_6_STABLE >> >> looking at the URI of this file. No wonder. > >Umm, I don't know what you are referring to here. Are you referring >to using 'git' as the value of BR2_LINUX26_VERSION instead of the full >URL? No, sorry. I was referring to the preexisting line cited above. >> I've done something like this for libtool, and i *think* that i will not >> waste _that_ much bandwith over and over again. Not my call, though. > >It should be okay. Using the --depth flag keeps the download size to >the bear minimum. Using it on current mainline results in ~100MB of >git repo (as opposed to ~50MB for a bz2 tarball and ~300MB for a full >git clone). Also, in the help text I recommend to use a local git >tree to keep clone bandwidth costs to a minimum. Yes. I'll do this differently though, never mind. > >>>@@ -499,6 +508,9 @@ linux-status: >> >> linux-status. If you have make, you most likely have grep, too. >I had mostly just been following the existing lead. I can drop this >change if it is preferred. I don't care about this bit, leave it in if you liked it. PS: So what about powerpc's crtsavres.o. Since i don't have a powerpc (and as such only stumbled across this accidentally) and furthermore don't need real external modules as opposed to in-tree modules for compile tests, i will not pursue this further. Perhaps you want to take care of it (kernel bugzilla #11143)? TIA.. :)