[bitbake-devel] [OE-core] [PATCH 1/4] gcc: Switch SRC_URI to use svn

[Richard Purdie]

On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 09:36 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Richard Purdie
> <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> 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
> > which:
> >
> > a) Generates tarballs of single git revisions if tarball generation is
> > turned on
> > b) Searches for single revision tarballs before trying the main checkout
> > 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 with
> > that and it shouldn't break too much?
> 
> 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