On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Richard Purdie
wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 09:36 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Richard Purdie
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 07:22 -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Otavio Salvador
>> >>
On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 09:36 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Richard Purdie
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 07:22 -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Otavio Salvador
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Björn Stenberg
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Richard Purdie
wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 07:22 -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Otavio Salvador
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Björn Stenberg wrote:
>> >> Khem Raj wrote:
>> >>> I agree but then 1.7 GB is notice
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Richard Purdie
wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 07:22 -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Otavio Salvador
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Björn Stenberg wrote:
>> >> Khem Raj wrote:
>> >>> I agree but then 1.7 GB is notice
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 07:22 -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Otavio Salvador
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Björn Stenberg wrote:
> >> Khem Raj wrote:
> >>> I agree but then 1.7 GB is noticeably huge too and it will only become
> >>> larger in future so
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Otavio Salvador
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Björn Stenberg 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 gc
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Björn Stenberg 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
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.
--
Björn
On Wednesday, September 12, 2012, Richard Purdie <
richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 20:44 -0600, Gary Thomas wrote:
>> On 2012-09-05 22:35, Khem Raj wrote:
>> > svn tar balls are 96M as compared to 1.3G git tars
>> > its unnessary to suck in that much of data.
>> >
On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 20:44 -0600, Gary Thomas wrote:
> On 2012-09-05 22:35, Khem Raj wrote:
> > svn tar balls are 96M as compared to 1.3G git tars
> > its unnessary to suck in that much of data.
> >
> > Fixes [YOCTO #2908]
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Khem Raj
>
> What about this patch? Carrying aro
On 2012-09-05 22:35, Khem Raj wrote:
svn tar balls are 96M as compared to 1.3G git tars
its unnessary to suck in that much of data.
Fixes [YOCTO #2908]
Signed-off-by: Khem Raj
What about this patch? Carrying around a 1.7GB (Sorry, Khem, that's the size
of my tar ball!)
is a bit much, espe
Op 6 sep. 2012, om 06:35 heeft Khem Raj het volgende
geschreven:
> svn tar balls are 96M as compared to 1.3G git tars
> its unnessary to suck in that much of data.
>
> Fixes [YOCTO #2908]
>
> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj
> ---
> meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-4.7.inc |8
> 1 file chang
svn tar balls are 96M as compared to 1.3G git tars
its unnessary to suck in that much of data.
Fixes [YOCTO #2908]
Signed-off-by: Khem Raj
---
meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-4.7.inc |8
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-4.7.i
13 matches
Mail list logo
