From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [59.124.115.149] (helo=aakash.openmoko.org) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Lc09N-0000X9-Kc for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:28:53 +0100 Received: from s0106001c100a3234.cg.shawcable.net ([70.73.132.19] helo=[172.16.14.101]) by aakash.openmoko.org with esmtpsa (SSL 3.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Lc06B-0006ZM-SN for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:25:49 +0800 From: Angus Ainslie To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org In-Reply-To: <1235492001.27962.60.camel@andromeda> References: <200902131728.08634.openembedded@haerwu.biz> <20090224064639.GE2172@smtp.west.cox.net> <1235492001.27962.60.camel@andromeda> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:25:26 -0700 Message-Id: <1235492726.8911.34.camel@alap> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.3 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 70.73.132.19 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: nytowl@openmoko.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7-deb (2006-10-05) on aakash.openmoko.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.7-deb X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Tue, 09 Jan 2007 17:23:22 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on aakash.openmoko.org) Subject: Re: checksums situation X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:28:54 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 17:13 +0100, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote: > Am Montag, den 23.02.2009, 23:46 -0700 schrieb Tom Rini: > > I'm going to make a different suggestion. Lets just drop it. > > I'm in favour of this. I don't think they give us the safety we want and > they introduce more inconvenience. > > Cheers, > Couldn't the default be a stern warning if the checksums don't match and distro's that want it could change it to an error ? Angus