From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 19:22:43 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 03/14] pkg-infra: move the git download helper to a script In-Reply-To: References: <87fvijbx17.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <20140702174430.3f1377ce@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <20140702192243.20920b70@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Thomas De Schampheleire, On Wed, 2 Jul 2014 19:19:42 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: > >> Thanks. I've verified that the (non-gzip'ed) tarball is identical to > >> what we had before, but I noticed that we no longer delete the temporary > >> repo in DL_DIR. > >> > >> Did you do that change on purpose? I don't think we want to keep it, do > >> we? > > > >Hum, I'm confused, didn't we say that we should no longer do any > >temporary thing in $(DL_DIR) in order to allow parallel builds of > >separate Buildroot instances to not mess up with each other? I think we > >said that the process should be: > > > > 1/ Clone the repo in $(BUILD_DIR) > > 2/ Create the tarball of the repo in $(BUILD_DIR) > > 3/ Move the tarball from $(BUILD_DIR) to $(DL_DIR) with a temporary > > unique file name. > > 4/ Rename the tarball in $(DL_DIR) to its final name > > > >Steps (3) and (4) are separated so that if $(DL_DIR) and $(BUILD_DIR) > >are in separate filesystems, the rename to the final name remains an > >atomic operation. > > > >And yes, the git download helper from Yann doesn't seem to implement > >this logic (or I got lost with the variable names, which is very > >possible). > > This patch (3/14) only moves the existing logic to a separate script, > just like for the other helpers. Later patches in the same series > improve the logic. In particular, not using DL_DIR as scratchpad is > implemented in patch 11/14 http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/365791/ Ah, ok, thanks for the clarification. However that doesn't explain why the temporary repo in $(DL_DIR) is not being removed. That's a regression compared to the original code in the .mk file, no? Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com