[arch-general] Kernel source URL change

[Joan Aymà]

The size problem can be solved using hollow clone.

Regards.

On Thu, 2 Aug 2018, 07:28 Leonidas Spyropoulos via arch-general, <
arch-general at archlinux.org> wrote:

> On 01/08/18, Andrey Vihrov via arch-general wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Recently the way kernel sources are retrieved was changed in the linux
> > package [1]. Now the sources are fetched from
> > https://github.com/archlinux/linux.
> >
> > I see a few problems with this:
> >
> > - Previously the list of applied patches was very transparent. You could
> > immediately see that the kernel and kernel patch tarballs come from
> > kernel.org, and view individual extra patches. Now the code comes from a
> > non-kernel source, and cannot be verified as easily.
> >
> > - Previously, if a new kernel version is released and is not yet in the
> > repos, you could more or less take the official linux PKGBUILD, change
> > one number and build it yourself. With the new layout it is not clear
> > how to achieve this.
> >
> > - An often cited Arch policy is to use software as released by upstream
> > with minimal patching. What becomes of this policy if one of the core
> > packages builds from a technical fork instead of upstream?
> >
> >
> > If the patches from kernel.org will no longer be signed, as announced in
> > [2], then an alternative would be git tags from [3] and [4]. It's
> > understandable if it may make development harder, nonetheless it would
> > allow for better transparency and follow upstream closer — just one
> > user's opinion.
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/commit/trunk?h=packages/linux&id=d0c4ab0716e0ae1fc058a83ccb02bde92885ced6
> > [2] https://www.kernel.org/minor-changes-to-tarball-release-format.html
> > [3] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/
> > [4] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Andrey
>
> Also now to build the package locally you download the whole repository
> (~2 Gb compared to the ~110 Mb previously).
>
> What's the reasoning behind this change?
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Leonidas Spyropoulos
>
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
>