[OE-core] [warrior][PATCH] bitbake.conf: add git-lfs to HOSTTOOLS_NONFATAL

[Andre McCurdy]

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 8:45 PM akuster808 <akuster808 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/15/19 2:31 PM, Andre McCurdy wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 2:09 PM Richard Purdie
> > <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2019-08-15 at 09:23 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
> >>> NAK
> >>>
> >>> Yes, the first part was merged in warrior and is correct.
> >>>
> >>> But this second part isn't good (you don't want git-lfs to sometimes
> >>> work and sometimes fail) and that's why it was rejected for master
> >>> and _shouldn't_ be merged to warrior. If you have recipes which need
> >>> git-lfs, then add it to normal HOSTTOOLS in your builds to make sure
> >>> it's always present when needed.
> >> I don't like the patch but it did merge to master.
> >>
> >> Building a git-lfs-native is a nightmare due to all its dependencies (I
> >> think its go based?) and there wasn't really any other way to sort it.
> > Upstream provides generic binaries for at least x86, x86-64 and ARM64:
> >
> >   https://github.com/git-lfs/git-lfs/releases
> >   https://github.com/git-lfs/git-lfs/releases/download/v2.8.0/git-lfs-linux-386-v2.8.0.tar.gz
> >   https://github.com/git-lfs/git-lfs/releases/download/v2.8.0/git-lfs-linux-amd64-v2.8.0.tar.gz
> >   https://github.com/git-lfs/git-lfs/releases/download/v2.8.0/git-lfs-linux-arm64-v2.8.0.tar.gz
> >
> > Would just downloading and installing the official upstream binaries be so bad?
>
> making a big change like this seems to be a no-go for a stable branch.

Right. This probably isn't suitable for the stable branch. It would
obviously be implemented first in master anyway.

Point was just that if we made use of the upstream binaries (which are
completely distro independent as far as I can tell?) then a
git-lfs-native recipe would transform from "a nightmare" to almost
trivial.