From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [68.230.241.45] (helo=fed1rmmtao101.cox.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LbrBZ-0005j2-8O for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:54:33 +0100 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao101.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20090224065126.OUPN2948.fed1rmmtao101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:51:26 -0500 Received: from localhost ([68.230.63.214]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id KirQ1b0074dMFYL04irQXQ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:51:26 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=hjmUo6_iwTf1-Xc1ZCUA:9 a=nJteQal8-xDW7jX9PsGSIQs_xhUA:4 a=LY0hPdMaydYA:10 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:51:24 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: openembedded-devel@openembedded.org Message-ID: <20090224065124.GF2172@smtp.west.cox.net> References: <200902131728.08634.openembedded@haerwu.biz> <20090224064639.GE2172@smtp.west.cox.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20090224064639.GE2172@smtp.west.cox.net> Organization: Embedded Alley Solutions, Inc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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 06:54:33 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:46:39PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 05:28:08PM +0100, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > It is nearly two years since conf/checksums.ini was introduced. We > > populated it with over 6000 entries during that time (mostly by > > automatic fetching of all source on CELF and EWI machines). But there > > are problems with it's format. > > I'm going to make a different suggestion. Lets just drop it. Part of > why I say this is that we went back on it being a mandatory thing > because it was a burden. And we're already back to adding stuff without > checksums again (gstreamer, libdaemon on this build so far..). [snip] > Oh, and in the 5 minutes the above took to write, gst-plugins-base > failed to have a checksum too. OK, this is a me problem. But the rest of my point stands. I'm willing to bet most people aren't making sure the md5/sha1 is right with upstream, and I think we'd be better off at trying to automatically grab an upstream verification and use that. -- Tom Rini