Re: [PATCH] git: add SRC_URI name

[Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 07:17:54PM +0100, Martin Jansa wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:06:00AM -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 11:24 -0500, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 04:32:32PM +0100, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>> >> > Signed-off-by: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com>
>> >> > ---
>> >> >  recipes/git/git.inc |    2 +-
>> >> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>> >> >
>> >> > diff --git a/recipes/git/git.inc b/recipes/git/git.inc
>> >> > index 644e159..fd7b708 100644
>> >> > --- a/recipes/git/git.inc
>> >> > +++ b/recipes/git/git.inc
>> >> > @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ DESCRIPTION = "The git revision control system used by the Linux kernel develope
>> >> >  SECTION = "console/utils"
>> >> >  LICENSE = "GPL"
>> >> >
>> >> > -SRC_URI = "http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/git-${PV}.tar.bz2"
>> >> > +SRC_URI = "http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/git-${PV}.tar.bz2;name=git"
>> >>
>> >> Is there a patch to add checksums in corresponding recipes to use the name? Or
>> >> what is the purpose of adding one?
>> >
>> > I guess the idea is to make it possible for new recipes (which use
>> > this .inc file) to include their own checksums.  Seems like a reasonable
>> > enough plan even if the old recipes are not converted.
>> 
>> Has anyone thought about programmatically injecting a name to the
>> first tarball/zip in the SRC_URI if no sources have that name yet?  It
>> seems like adding a name to the primary tarball is becoming common
>> boilerplate, and the common case is for that to be the first source.

For recipes that have only one fetched source, could we perhaps default
to plain SRC_URI[md5sum], without a name. If a second fetched source is
added, this would transparently break (i.e. require adding two names).
>
>Also would be great to have unified names where possible.

For recipes that have two or more fetched sources, i personally would
use PN but, as you say, that has the disadvantage that you have to
potentially lookup the package name in an .inc. Not my call though.

>It would make adding new recipes a bit easier (no need to
>check/copy&paster name used in .inc and also base.bbclass could easily
>generate those checksum sections with right name easier.
>
>I'm using "archive" as few others also used.

and some use tarball, some pn ....