From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [68.230.241.39] (helo=fed1rmmtao107.cox.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Lc2Pv-00077G-TZ for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:54:08 +0100 Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao107.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20090224185101.BCUP10385.fed1rmmtao107.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:51:01 -0500 Received: from localhost ([68.230.63.214]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id Kuqz1b00V4dMFYL03uqzxK; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:51:02 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=o95VN5vaAAAA:8 a=JzlCuvWwUopXQ0WakAoA:9 a=q4NZYlvneqWJp2uny0sA:7 a=Y5FPf9hqtP1mcGZ4Ejqdjzp8IWUA:4 a=LY0hPdMaydYA:10 a=SR-wqsnMdtQA:10 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:50:59 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: openembedded-devel@openembedded.org Message-ID: <20090224185059.GL2172@smtp.west.cox.net> References: <200902131728.08634.openembedded@haerwu.biz> <20090224064639.GE2172@smtp.west.cox.net> <1235492001.27962.60.camel@andromeda> <8763izyarp.fsf@neumann.lab.ossystems.com.br> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: 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 18:54:08 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 08:36:35PM +0200, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Otavio Salvador > wrote: > > Michael 'Mickey' Lauer writes: > > > >> Am Montag, den 23.02.2009, 23:46 -0700 schrieb Tom Rini: > >>> I'm going to make a different suggestion.  Lets just drop it. > >> > >> I'm in favour of this. I don't think they give us the safety we want and > >> they introduce more inconvenience. > > > > After reading the thread I'm also in favour of this. > > If you guys don't need it then just disable this checksum feature. No problem. This misses the point. We're trying to get things to the point (and keep them there) where the default case is things working well. I and others are arguing that the checksum feature is at best a lazy way to check only for files changing and not their correctness. I'm not saying we don't need a feature to check for correctness, I'm saying what we have now doesn't. -- Tom Rini