Re: opkg in svn?

[Robert Calhoun <rcalhoun@shotspotter.com>]

From: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>

>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.

>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.

From: Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com>
>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!




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?

-Rob Calhoun