Hi all,
> > > > So there is no support for depth clones until 2.5.0? I didn't really > > understand. > > Well, shallow clones are supported but only for branch tips, which is > not what we need. This feature for shallow cloning a specific revision > is available only in git 2.5.0+. Also, this feature needs a server-side > configuration option to be enabled, in order to work properly. > > Regards, > Nikolay > I'd argue that this whole issue with the whole meta-raspberrypi firmware.inc download is more than just slow, inconvenient download. I've left builds running all night (8+ hours on a 30Mib/s residential link) that just hang on this, usually timing out. I initially thought it was just me, but am hearing others confirm this as well. As such, I just wanted to continue this conversation. It sounds like git fetch's --depth is the best option on the table, but has the issues Nikolay has described. What are your thoughts on the following? (1) We create a git-native and build a version that supports this the fetch depth? I suspect this could be made to work, but haven't dug into what dependencies git may have and how that would play out on various LTS distros. My knee-jerk is that has too high of a risk/benefit ration, given that we're talking about 1 repo. (2) We update the git fetcher to check the git version and support a depth= option if the git version is sufficient. If it is not, we spit out a warning and fall back to the current behavior. Neither (1) nor (2) address Nikolay's point that --depth requires server-side support. However, I'd argue this is something you'd be testing and verifying when writing the recipe. Is this a reasonable assertion? How likely is it that a server supporting this would suddenly be re-configured? (3) We request that the upstream maintainer of meta-raspberrypi use the GitHub Release feature [a] to post a tarball of a known checksum at somewhat regular intervals. I'm told by a few package maintainers that while the tarballs that it generates for specific changesets are subject to change, that the tarballs it autogenerates when using its Releases feature do not. However, I have not confirmed this. If this is false, then one can upload a tarball with known checksums to the release as an attachment; I would be *shocked* if they touch your attachments. While (3) is a nice "not our problem" solution, I think (2) might have some benefits for other recipes later. Any other ideas? Best regards, Jon [a] https://help.github.com/articles/creating-releases/
-- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
