[OE-core] opkg in svn?

[Richard Purdie]

On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 16:21 +0000, Robert Calhoun wrote:
> From: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie at 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.

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 <sgw at 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!

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