Re: A Proposal to Move to Git
Doug Evans <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gnu.binutils,gmane.comp.gdb.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CADPb22R2uJPioSgnkSntzDARUstiWRELH139ymgFd6PgO9nX_A@mail.gmail.com> |
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Steinar Bang <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> "H.J. Lu" <[email protected]>: > >> I assume git repo has both binutils and gdb. Is that possible to only >> checkout binutils portion? > > Not as such. There is something similar called sparse checkouts. > Eg. if your source is organized like > binutils/ > gdb/ > you can opt to checkout only > binutils/ > in your working directory. > > But it still will be organized as a binutils/ subdirectory at the top > level. > > Ie. if you clone your binutils-only version of gdb+binutils like so > git clone git://somegitrepo.org/gdbbinutils.git binutils > you will have to do > cd binutils/binutils > to get to he interesting stuff... > > Also the "user interface" for sparse checkouts kinda sucks: > - You set a git property > - You add lines to a text file saying what should be checked out > - You either do an initial checkout, or you use the little used command > git-read-tree to update the working directory > > After this, git can be used normally (merge, add, commit, push). > > If disk usage is an issue, I guess it could be useful...? You would > still have the entire git repo, though. > Not that this is necessarily one of HJ's issues, but it's too bad "binutils" is both the name of the package and a directory within it. Otherwise I can imagine all-binutils, install-binutils, check-binutils in the top level makefile doing the right thing (e.g. being wrappers for all-gas+all-ld+..., etc.).