Am Samstag, den 17.07.2010, 14:15 +0200 schrieb Koen Kooi: > On 17-07-10 10:35, Paul Menzel wrote: > > Am Samstag, den 17.07.2010, 01:03 +0200 schrieb Koen Kooi: > >> On 16-07-10 17:23, Khem Raj wrote: > >>> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Paul Menzel > >>> <paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > > >>>> Am Donnerstag, den 15.07.2010, 19:55 +0200 schrieb Paul Menzel: > >>>> > >>>>> I ran out of space and noticed > >>>>> > >>>>> /angstrom-dev/work/i686-linux/git-native-1.7.0.2-r4 > >>>>> > >>>>> is 8,1G big. > >>>>> > >>>>> Some of the executable files in > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> /angstrom-dev/work/i686-linux/git-native-1.7.0.2-r4/sysroot-destdir/angstrom-dev/sysroots/i686-linux/usr/libexec/git-core/ > >>>>> > >>>>> are 101 MB big. > >>> > >>> its most probably the -g3/-ggdb3 bloat. > >> > >> No, it's git not creating (hard)links but copies of the same app. Run an > >> md5sum on the binaries, they will all match. I suggest you stop > >> spreading FUD about -ggdb3, it is not being appriciated. > > > > I do not know anything about the technical background. I can only report > > that removing `-ggdb3` fixed it for me. > > Are you saying that removing -ggdb3 made git create proper (hard)links?
No, I just said, that after doing as Khem suggested the available space
was big enough.
Anyway, I tried to investigate a little and could not find anything
related to (hard)link problems. But probably I overlooked something. I
head refresh my memory about hard and soft links [1].
1. As you suggested in your reply I ran `md5sum` on the binaries. They
do indeed match on the binaries I posted, but also the inode matches. It
looks like that is way it should be.
$ echo "Test" > test
$ ln test test.link
$ md5sum test*
2205e48de5f93c784733ffcca841d2b5 test
2205e48de5f93c784733ffcca841d2b5 test.link
$ ls -1i test*
3653430 test
3653430 test.link
So I think the hardlinks were created properly. I did not think of this
when reporting the problem so I did not run `ls -i` on the listed files
and I did not check with `du`.
/angstrom-dev/work/i686-linux/git-native-1.7.1.1-r0/image/angstrom-dev/sysroots/i686-linux/usr/libexec/git-core
$ md5sum * | sort
[…]
82c05218d9634923e301a9463e8f9c0d git-shell
85edbd7803242b4895ed33b4fcfa3622 git-remote-ftp
85edbd7803242b4895ed33b4fcfa3622 git-remote-ftps
85edbd7803242b4895ed33b4fcfa3622 git-remote-http
85edbd7803242b4895ed33b4fcfa3622 git-remote-https
89a6ef52f4b7c336fb5fc0601edfd95f git-mergetool
9a7f760ecef6e64f370c907d61ad0ffb git-svn
9b57eb61ce668f2105a61a467f4d6d9b git-difftool
ac3472a81bc59a69119b0d027c3f617b git-merge-one-file
b14a5bba57d0ae0ccfdb0fceac0eb4ec git-merge-octopus
b6899828bc756c5d30398d49dce91deb git-cvsexportcommit
b775de2d21923f5d08e0bdcf3f9d31f6 git-mergetool--lib
bd786a897bdc214bd5d89f51ad79f152 git-instaweb
c8466908a274e211a43d287e510f2f19 git-merge-resolve
ce109bd27d9404980bd82ddb529eca90 git-send-email
d3da496bd962246727ceaabc1d4b1bdd git-sh-setup
d46c9b755b712bf3c27521b3c6e5fd30 git-relink
d4b577d9a69d9af883de29d6af4f04c5 git
d4b577d9a69d9af883de29d6af4f04c5 git-add
d4b577d9a69d9af883de29d6af4f04c5 git-annotate
d4b577d9a69d9af883de29d6af4f04c5 git-apply
[…]
/angstrom-dev/work/i686-linux/git-native-1.7.1.1-r0/image/angstrom-dev/sysroots/i686-linux/usr/libexec/git-core
$ ls -1i
[ … ordered manually to match md5sum output]
3691063 git-shell
3691070 git-remote-ftp
3691070 git-remote-ftps
3691070 git-remote-http
3691070 git-remote-https
3691082 git-mergetool
3691100 git-svn
3691093 git-difftool
3691080 git-merge-one-file
3691079 git-merge-octopus
3691095 git-cvsexportcommit
3691102 git-mergetool--lib
3691101 git-instaweb
3691081 git-merge-resolve
3691099 git-send-email
3691104 git-sh-setup
3691098 git-relink
3691105 git
[…]
What did I miss? Were you seeing something different?
2. You seem to have investigated this problem before and committed a fix
for git [2].
git 1.7.0.2: fix hardlinking problems as reported by Eric Brombaugh
I could not find Eric’s report on this list or the Web. So I have to
test without your patch. But `git-native` does not seem to use your
patch, so I guess the behavior should be the one without your patch.
Could you please tell me if my observations are correct.
Thanks,
Paul
[1] info coreutils "ln invocation"
[2]
http://git.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded/commit/?id=84de51631e1e7bb76141332807ed2ba9e8df02ae
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
