From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tim.rpsys.net (93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk [93.97.173.237]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAC2BE013A6 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:20:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3HLKsZm023226; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 22:20:54 +0100 Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 20408-03; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 22:20:50 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3HLKkhu023217 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 17 Apr 2012 22:20:47 +0100 Message-ID: <1334697649.616.138.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: Gary Thomas Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 22:20:49 +0100 In-Reply-To: <4F8DA181.9070005@mlbassoc.com> References: <4F8493BB.5070400@mlbassoc.com> <1334100422.10826.99.camel@ted> <4F84CCE3.1060504@mlbassoc.com> <4F84E00D.7030302@mlbassoc.com> <4F8D5F61.1010002@mlbassoc.com> <1334674913.616.98.camel@ted> <4F8D8A73.3030408@mlbassoc.com> <1334677494.616.101.camel@ted> <4F8D934D.9070704@mlbassoc.com> <1334679589.616.106.camel@ted> <4F8DA181.9070005@mlbassoc.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2- Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Cc: poky@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: SRC checksum checking broken 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, 17 Apr 2012 21:20:58 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 10:59 -0600, Gary Thomas wrote: > On 2012-04-17 10:19, Richard Purdie wrote: > Well, it seems that the checksums are encouraged, if not required, these days. > I was just making sure that they actually work & in my opinion, it shouldn't > matter how you got the file, the checksums should still be checked and match. You can argue this both ways. I'm leaning that direction although it has its risks. > Sadly, this is much worse. It even [somehow] reached "through" my > mirror setup and deleted the file on the backing store (i.e. the > file /work/misc/Poky/sources/busybox-1.19.4.tar.bz2 gets deleted > when the checksum fails even though it's part of the own-mirror) Was that the only issue? I can see how it managed to do that, I agree it shouldn't :/. Cheers, Richard