FS#71400 - [linux] [linux-zen] Consider switching to kernel.org tarball

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Emil (xexaxo) - Tuesday, 29 June 2021, 19:28 GMT
Last edited by Toolybird (Toolybird) - Saturday, 23 September 2023, 00:48 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Packages: Core
Status Closed
Assigned To Tobias Powalowski (tpowa)
Jan Alexander Steffens (heftig)
David Runge (dvzrv)
Levente Polyak (anthraxx)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 3
Private No

Details

Description:

Please consider switching to kernel.org tarball, while handling the extra patches either alongside the repo [1] or as separate (signed) tarball [2].

Currently we clone the github repo which results in ~3.2GiB of traffic, while the respective tarball it around 5MiB.
We are talking 3 orders of magnitude difference across the two.

This also translates to increased disk and execution, albeit to a smaller extend.

Thanks

[1] https://github.com/archlinux/svntogit-packages/blob/11154a9ba8af53babc9772a15cf5493cc4e55709/trunk/PKGBUILD#L19
[2] https://github.com/archlinux/svntogit-packages/blob/6a8f1764a667020445916b595f5a7186f097f8aa/trunk/PKGBUILD#L22


Additional info:
* package version(s)
linux 5.12.13.arch1-2
linux-zen 5.12.13.zen1-2
This task depends upon

Closed by  Toolybird (Toolybird)
Saturday, 23 September 2023, 00:48 GMT
Reason for closing:  Fixed
Additional comments about closing:  linux 6.5.4.arch1-1
linux-zen 6.5.4.zen1-1
Comment by Eli Schwartz (eschwartz) - Tuesday, 29 June 2021, 19:47 GMT
> while the respective tarball it around 5MiB

Hmm, the tarball should be around 100mb which is 1/30th the size of the git repo but still not exactly 5mb?
Comment by Michel Koss (MichelKoss1) - Tuesday, 29 June 2021, 20:26 GMT
Implementing shallow clone as option for cloning git repos would also help for this and others big repos.
Comment by John (graysky) - Tuesday, 29 June 2021, 20:33 GMT
I believe the shallow clone idea for makepkg was discussed in the past but denied. Have to search to confirm my memory.
Comment by Michel Koss (MichelKoss1) - Tuesday, 29 June 2021, 20:42 GMT
yeah but those big repos keep growing every day, month and year. I imagine there is some upper limit after which even makepkg devs will throw the towel and finally admit that downloading several GB of data only to checkout 100MB of relevant data is incredible waste of bandwidth, storage space and time :)
Comment by Eli Schwartz (eschwartz) - Tuesday, 29 June 2021, 20:45 GMT
This is not the right place to discuss whether makepkg should implement some changed behavior. Stick to discussing the actual ticket.
Comment by Emil (xexaxo) - Tuesday, 29 June 2021, 21:35 GMT
Yes the tarball is ~113MiB apologies. 5MiB was my abysmal internet connection earlier today.

In case it matters, makepkg cannot use shallow clone since that will not fetch the signed tag, hence gpg verify-tag will fail.
Comment by Morten Linderud (Foxboron) - Tuesday, 29 June 2021, 21:43 GMT
The issue is that heftig has said multiple times that this is the easiest option for them to maintain the kernel. The bandwidth savings and tarball size are all moot point, they don't make development and maintaining the kernel easier.
Comment by Emil (xexaxo) - Tuesday, 29 June 2021, 23:48 GMT
Perhaps I'm missing something but following the hardened [2] approach seems perfectly trivial, does it not?

It is also using a github repo with full kernel tree, although a signed patches tarball is also present used.
Off the top of my head - that can be trivially scripted, from tarball creation, signing and upload to github.

If anthraxx doesn't have a script (or cannot share it for whatever reason) I'm happy to take prep one.
Comment by Buggy McBugFace (bugbot) - Tuesday, 08 August 2023, 19:11 GMT
This is an automated comment as this bug is open for more then 2 years. Please reply if you still experience this bug otherwise this issue will be closed after 1 month.
Comment by Emil (xexaxo) - Tuesday, 12 September 2023, 09:06 GMT
Yup still present. Building both linux and linux-zen pulls in GBs of data, where only a fraction of that is needed in reality.

While I can sympathise with the maintainers, linux-lts and linux-hardened are illustration that one can have both - small downloads and reasonably hassle-free maintenance.

Thanks
Comment by Jan Alexander Steffens (heftig) - Tuesday, 12 September 2023, 10:11 GMT
I have a better patch workflow now that I can also attempt to apply to the linux packages. So this isn't a Won't-Fix for me yet.

Loading...