From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35B8977213 for ; Tue, 31 May 2016 22:23:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 31 May 2016 15:23:40 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,397,1459839600"; d="scan'208";a="711867723" Received: from unknown (HELO peggleto-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com) ([10.255.146.125]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 31 May 2016 15:23:37 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:23:35 +1200 Message-ID: <1570473.5iIQe2jHu3@peggleto-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.4.9-300.fc23.x86_64; KDE/4.14.20; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <3214370.KVsKdKNYRI@peggleto-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <3214370.KVsKdKNYRI@peggleto-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/42] gcc: Add gcc6 recipes X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 22:23:41 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:20:23 Paul Eggleton wrote: > On Tue, 31 May 2016 11:12:21 Jussi Kukkonen wrote: > > On 11 May 2016 at 20:35, Khem Raj wrote: > > > +#BASEURI ?= "${GNU_MIRROR}/gcc/gcc-${PV}/gcc-${PV}.tar.bz2" > > > +BASEURI ?= "git:// > > > github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc;branch=gcc-6-branch;protocol=git" > > > > I guess this is where git2_github.com.gcc-mirror.gcc.tar.gz download comes > > from? It increased the size of my downloads-directory by >30% -- and I > > must > > have quite a bit of old junk in that directory already. > > > > Is there no other solution to this than a 2.5G git copy (honest question, > > I > > don't know gcc)? > > We went down this road before and it wasn't great for users. There is at > least a tarball for 6.1, we'd presumably need some patches on top of that > (~43 if we were to simply take what's in the gcc-6-branch between 6.1 and > bd9a826, minus the "daily bumps"). Perhaps that was a little unclear - when I say "we went down this road before" I'm agreeing with Jussi - we pointed to a git branch in a previous release with the same resulting huge download for everyone, something I think we should avoid if at all possible. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre