From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.173.237] helo=tim.rpsys.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TCW4O-0005sQ-0H; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:36:32 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q8EDNqgK011691; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:23:52 +0100 Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 10921-08; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:23:48 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q8EDNeZf011670 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:23:42 +0100 Message-ID: <1347629023.13596.12.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: Otavio Salvador Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:23:43 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <5c54fcdb91d19909f8658b6a6e8d6e6cac934cf2.1346905978.git.raj.khem@gmail.com> <504FF70B.7060701@mlbassoc.com> <1347458928.11710.21.camel@ted> <20120913121935.GC18675@giant> <1347623908.13596.2.camel@ted> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by tim.rpsys.net id q8EDNqgK011691 Cc: Chris Larson , bitbake-devel , openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] gcc: Switch SRC_URI to use svn X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 13:36:32 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 09:36 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Richard Purdie > wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 07:22 -0700, Chris Larson wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Otavio Salvador > >> wrote: > >> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Bj=C3=B6rn Stenberg wrote: > >> >> Khem Raj wrote: > >> >>> I agree but then 1.7 GB is noticeably huge too and it will only = become > >> >>> larger in future so I don't think fetching from git will be a go= od solution > >> >>> for gcc ever. > >> >> > >> >> Can we use shallow clones? A quick test of gcc-4.7 gave me a 308 = MB tar.gz when cloned with --depth 1. > >> > > >> > I did not check if the fetcher has this support but it would be a > >> > nice solution. > >> > >> Shallow clones won't be able to support SRCREV properly, as you can > >> only clone shallowly from HEAD, not from an arbitrary point in > >> history, AFAIK. > > > > Right, shallow clones are a can of worms from a variety of angles. > > > > My current thinking is a ;allowsinglerev=3D1 parameter to the git fet= cher > > which: > > > > a) Generates tarballs of single git revisions if tarball generation i= s > > turned on > > b) Searches for single revision tarballs before trying the main check= out > > approach. > > > > This would mean that WORKDIR may or may not have a .git directory for > > any SRC_URI marked with this. I think we should all be able to live w= ith > > that and it shouldn't break too much? >=20 > We'll end with multiple tarballs, aren't we? Yes. I'm not seeing that as a big problem for most of the usecases where we'd use this feature. You could skip shipping the big tarball of the whole repo at distribution time. Cheers, Richard