From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [200.17.161.174] (helo=listas.ossystems.com.br) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LY1Xz-00086J-O8 for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 18:09:51 +0100 Received: from internet.ossystems.com.br (201-40-162-47.cable.viacabocom.com.br [201.40.162.47]) by listas.ossystems.com.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4490E4020B; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:08:35 -0200 (BRST) Received: from ossystems.com.br (unknown [10.1.0.243]) by internet.ossystems.com.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BD3F740C3; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:07:50 -0200 (BRST) Received: by ossystems.com.br (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 57BC0610067; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:08:09 -0200 (BRST) From: Otavio Salvador To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Organization: O.S. Systems Ltda. References: <200902131728.08634.openembedded@haerwu.biz> X-URL: http://www.debian.org/~otavio/ X-Attribution: O.S. Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:08:09 -0200 In-Reply-To: <200902131728.08634.openembedded@haerwu.biz> (Marcin Juszkiewicz's message of "Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:28:08 +0100") Message-ID: <878woae03q.fsf@neumann.lab.ossystems.com.br> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-devel@openembedded.org 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: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:09:52 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Marcin Juszkiewicz writes: <...> > This solution also has one nasty part - now we can keep SRC_URI for > multiple versions in common file, but if we switch to storing it in > SRC_URI we will have to change that. > > Other solution proposed on IRC was to keep checksums in extra file in > each directory of packages/ subdirectory. I think that it is not best > but sounds better then one file. > > What do you think? Which way we should go? Do you have other ideas? <...> What about having a checksums for _each_ recipe? foo_1.0.bb foo_1.0.md5sum This could have the valid one; this also avoid the sorting problem and like. -- O T A V I O S A L V A D O R --------------------------------------------- E-mail: otavio@debian.org UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br --------------------------------------------- "Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house."