I have used both git and the tarball methods of bitbaking projects, all of them
derivatives of the examples in the Yocto documentation. I was having issues
using the local clone of the Yocto kernel git repository this weekend. I had
successfully done that before, but I was rebuilding the PC workstation, and
getting everything setup and tested some of the meta-intel BSPs to make sure I
had everything right. Cloning the linux-yocto-3.0 repository was successful,
but the bakes against it failed. I made sure I had poky-extras setup right, but
I still had problems. To isolate the problem, I changed to building with the
tarballs and everything worked fine.
So that got me thinking what are the differences between the 2 methods:
I assume that if I use the tarball method, bitbake, using the recipes, pulls
down files from the online repositories and puts those files into the
centralized local download directory ($DL_DIR), allowing reuse instead of
re-downloading each time. The content downloaded for linux-yocto-3.0 is
exactly what would be pulled from the local repository if I used a local clone
of the git repository for linux-yocto-3.0.
If my assumption above is correct, if I'm not modifying the source code of the
kernel (only changing config parameters), then once you've run at least one
build with the tarball method, the $DL_DIR directory contains all the files
you'll need to build any image with linux-yocto-3.0. So there is no need to
have a local clone of the kernel repository for speeding up development. Am I
right?
If I have a successful creation of a bare clone of linux-yocto-3.0.git, how
could builds of Edison packages be failing? That makes me concerned about
using git and successfully repeating builds of stable branches like Edison.
Jim A
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
