From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [78.47.116.26] (helo=drlauer-research.com) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1N8B95-0002ph-6P for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:13:54 +0100 Received: from [192.168.1.7] (dialbs-092-079-168-007.static.arcor-ip.net [92.79.168.7]) by drlauer-research.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A28C2128006C for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:58:29 +0100 (CET) From: Michael 'Mickey' Lauer To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org In-Reply-To: <1257931062.25369.292.camel@lenovo.internal.reciva.com> References: <1257872140.1484.335.camel@mill.internal.reciva.com> <200911110206.20901.holger+oe@freyther.de> <1257927850.25369.283.camel@lenovo.internal.reciva.com> <200911110944.10399.holger+oe@freyther.de> <1257931062.25369.292.camel@lenovo.internal.reciva.com> Organization: Vanille-Media Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:12:34 +0100 Message-ID: <1257937954.6879.2.camel@opal> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.1 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 78.47.116.26 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mickey@vanille-media.de X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on linuxtogo.org); Unknown failure Subject: Re: OEDEM 2009 summary: Death to checksums.ini? 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: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:13:54 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: