Re: OEDEM 2009 summary: Death to checksums.ini?

[Michael 'Mickey' Lauer <mickey@vanille-media.de>]

Am Mittwoch, den 11.11.2009, 09:17 +0000 schrieb Phil Blundell:
> On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 09:44 +0100, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
> > This will create an even bigger mess. Sometimes you need to download two 
> > things, this means you will end up with A_MD5SUM, B_MD5SUM, A_SHASUM, 
> > B_SHASUM. The main problem with the above is that in contrast to a well defined 
> > checksums.ini file we will end up with n-variants of the above trick.
> 
> The number of recipes where multiple items need to be downloaded and
> checksummed is small: this is a tiny minority of the total.  So,
> although I agree that this case will become more ugly, I don't think
> this is going to be a common enough problem that it will represent a
> very big deal.
> 
> > I agree that conceptually the checksum belongs to the URI, but putting it into
> > the URI is just creating a horrible mess. It has issues with .inc files, adding 
> > a shasum will make the URI not fit in any terminal...
> > 
> > The best alternatives so far where:
> > 	- Place the checksums into the dir of the recipe
> > 	- Use a MD5SUM_${URL} = "", SHA256SUM_${URL} = "" syntax
> 
> I would be happy with the latter of those suggestions.  I don't think
> the former really addresses the problems with the current checksums.ini.

I agree here, the latter syntax seems well.

:M: