From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dan.rpsys.net (dan.rpsys.net [93.97.175.187]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A25306D98D for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:28:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-2.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id rAIHRttC011131; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:27:55 GMT X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at dan.rpsys.net Received: from dan.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id M6wWFAA9x6NS; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:27:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.3.10] (rpvlan0 [192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-2.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id rAIHRo3K011128 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:27:51 GMT Message-ID: <1384795666.6460.252.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: Robert Calhoun , "Eggleton, Paul" , "Rifenbark, Scott M" Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:27:46 +0000 In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.4-0ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core Subject: Re: opkg in svn? X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:28:07 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 16:21 +0000, Robert Calhoun wrote: > From: Richard Purdie > > >opkg is in svn but its one of the few remaining > >components we use from svn. It means we have to build subversion-native > >which has a fairly long dependency chain. It would be nice if we didn't > >need to so is there any chance we can move opkg to git? > > I'm one of the great unwashed who still use subversion internally. For > these users, removing subversion SRC_URIs from oe-core will not remove the > need to build subversion-native. I'm not suggesting that oe-core should > not move away from svn when appropriate, only that many users aren't going > see much of a performance bump when every last reference is purged. If you need it for internal usage, you probably don't mind the build overhead and/or you can use ASSUME_PROVIDED. I'm not suggesting we drop svn support or anything like that, I would just prefer to optimise the build where we can and this is looking like somewhere reasonable to do it now. > >An alternative would be to have good tarball releases we could use > >instead? > > If opkg doesn't change much, a tarball download will be faster and use > less disk space than svn checkout. This seems like a good approach. Agreed, I don't think this hurts anything. > From: Saul Wold > >Yup, that's the one, and they don't keep the older tarballs around > >either, a real pain! > > ...as long as the old tarballs hang around! This is a case where we can ensure they do I hope! :) > Documentation on the various SRC_URI fetchers is pretty thin in the yocto > manuals. The bitbake documentation is also incomplete and it requires 1 GB > (!) of dependencies to make. I'd be happy to work on better documenting > SRC_URI syntax; where should this go? A new section under 5.3 of the dev > manual seems most appropriate: > > http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/current/dev-manual/dev-manual.html#usingpo > ky-extend-addpkg > > I assume bitbake's usermanual.xml should be updated as well? There are a > half-dozen commits in the last two years, so it is neither very active nor > very dead. > > This sort of falls under > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4370 but as that is > about the OE user manual, should I make a new ticket and assign it to > myself? I'd sync with Paul Eggleton on this since I think he and Scott Rifenbbark are going to figure out how to deal with the bitbake manual soon. It certainly needs some TLC. Cheers, Richard