From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [206.46.173.9] (helo=vms173009pub.verizon.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1N7q2C-0001xs-7j for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:41:23 +0100 Received: from gandalf.denix.org ([71.251.63.147]) by vms173009.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPA id <0KSW008TL5QBNMCQ@vms173009.mailsrvcs.net> for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:39:47 -0600 (CST) Received: by gandalf.denix.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CA89414AF64; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:39:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:39:46 -0500 From: Denys Dmytriyenko To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Message-id: <20091110113946.GA24738@denix.org> References: <200910291241.35265.marcin@juszkiewicz.com.pl> <200911020309.56350.holger+oe@freyther.de> <20091109065322.GD16449@ibawizard.net> MIME-version: 1.0 In-reply-to: <20091109065322.GD16449@ibawizard.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 206.46.173.9 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: denis@denix.org 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: Checksums.ini again - new format this time 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, 10 Nov 2009 12:41:23 -0000 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 07:53:22AM +0100, Petr ?tetiar wrote: > Holger Hans Peter Freyther [2009-11-02 03:09:56]: > > > On Sunday 01 November 2009 23:59:18 Andrea Adami wrote: > > > And what about having a checksum file in each dir of /recipes ? > > > If the checksum changes the PR should be changed too. > > > > > > I think that is the best way in terms of scalability and BB collections. We > > have some weird cases where we might do require ../ but these are broken or > > need to duplicate the checksums... > > I like this idea more than one monolitic checksum file. checksums.ini is place > for storing of a duplicate information anyway. You need to enter URL in checksums, > you need to enter URL again into recipe. > > Wouldn't it be better to write URL with checksum once at one place and reuse > it than in recipe as some kind of variable or something like that? It was discussed during OEDEM and the conclusion was to switch to using checksums in SRC_URIs of corresponding recipes. -- Denys