<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Richard Purdie <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 17:42 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:<br>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Khem Raj <<a href="mailto:raj.khem@gmail.com">raj.khem@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Adapt the recipes to fetch a tarball.<br>
> Tarball is generated from latest 2.16 branch<br>
> which has e500-math_private.patch already applied<br>
> hence we remove that patch.<br>
><br>
> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <<a href="mailto:raj.khem@gmail.com">raj.khem@gmail.com</a>><br>
><br>
> What the motivation to move to the tarball?<br>
<br>
</div>svn:// recipes depend on subversion-native. Having switched to the new<br>
ubversion version, we've in a nasty position of it being hard to<br>
ASSUME_PROVIDED with the API breakage.<br>
<br>
Building subversion-native is a pain and delays the core part of the<br>
build significantly. Switching to tarball recipes should improve our<br>
build speed a lot.<br>
<br>
So its mainly for performance reasons that we should do this.<br>
<br>
My only question is whether we need to include the svn revision in the<br>
tarball name?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes please do or it is a nightmare to track it back to a revision.</div><div> </div></div>-- <br>Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems<br>E-mail: <a href="mailto:otavio@ossystems.com.br" target="_blank">otavio@ossystems.com.br</a> <a href="http://www.ossystems.com.br" target="_blank">http://www.ossystems.com.br</a><br>
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 <a href="http://projetos.ossystems.com.br" target="_blank">http://projetos.ossystems.com.br</a><br><br>