[bitbake-devel] [OE-core] [PATCH 1/4] gcc: Switch SRC_URI to use svn
martin.jansa at gmail.com
Sat Sep 15 06:25:52 UTC 2012
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:58:28PM +0100, 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
> > <otavio at ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Björn Stenberg <bjst at enea.com> 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 good 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=1 parameter to the git fetcher
> a) Generates tarballs of single git revisions if tarball generation is
> turned on
> b) Searches for single revision tarballs before trying the main checkout
> 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 with
> that and it shouldn't break too much?
Ah so finally fetch2 will have same functionality like fetch11 had?
IIRC there is old buq report about this.
> bitbake-devel mailing list
> bitbake-devel at lists.openembedded.org
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the bitbake-devel