From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from pug.o-hand.com (3a.49.1343.static.theplanet.com [67.19.73.58]) by mx1.pokylinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DD494C808B0 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 04:54:32 -0600 (CST) Received: from [10.250.128.97] (unknown [158.43.2.102]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pug.o-hand.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27CC212EC1C5 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 05:33:26 -0600 (CST) From: Joshua Lock To: poky@yoctoproject.org In-Reply-To: <20101221053230.GB20780@kyu3-hedt> References: <1292861428.25087.4661.camel@rex> <20101221053230.GB20780@kyu3-hedt> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 10:54:23 +0000 Message-ID: <1292928863.2701.2.camel@scimitar> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 (2.32.1-1.fc14) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] SRC_URI checksum support v3 X-BeenThere: poky@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Poky build system developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 10:54:32 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 13:32 +0800, Yu Ke wrote: > On Dec 20, 16:10, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-12-17 at 14:33 +0800, Yu Ke wrote: > > > This patch add SRC_URI checksum support. With this patch,fetcher > > > can verify the MD5 and SHA256 checksum of download src with the > > > value defined in recipes SRC_URI. > > > > > > This is the v3 patch with following changes compared with v2: > > > - add configurable variable BB_STRICT_CHECKSUM to handle checksum missing case > > > if checksum is missing and BB_STRICT_CHECKSUM = "1", bitbake will fatal > > > - add check to only verify checksum for protocol http/https/ftp/ftps, not > > > verify checksum for local file and other SCM > > > > > > Pull URL: git://git.pokylinux.org/poky-contrib.git > > > Branch: kyu3/srcuri-v3 > > > Browse: http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=kyu3/srcuri-v3 > > > > I merged this, then realised there was a problem with subsequent builds > > proceeding with corrupt files. I've pushed a fix for at least part of > > that. > > Thanks, it is indeed necessary fix. > > BTW, I am also thinking if we could merge Fetch.write_md5sum and > Fetch.verify_md5sum into verify_checksum, since they are all checksum > related, puting them together would be more clean logically. That makes the assumption that you only want to verify a checksum when fetching one, which I don't think is correct? Cheers, Joshua -- Joshua Lock Intel Open Source Technology Centre