Re: checksums situation

[Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>]

Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org> writes:

> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 08:36:35PM +0200, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Otavio Salvador
>> <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
>> > Michael 'Mickey' Lauer <mlauer@vanille-media.de> 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.

I do belive that the best way to solve it is to have a md5 file together
with the .bb recipe. This solves the problems for forks, derivatives and
also makes harder to just use "cat tmp/checksums.ini >> conf/checksums.ini".

Doing that we'll have a clear way to add the required content, avoid the
mirror and URL issues and also make simple to forget about useless
entries in the metadata repository.

Obviously, it is a little more difficult to add the contents but I
believe that it will enforce more checking by our side before changing a
hash.

My 2c. 

-- 
Otavio Salvador                  O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854         http://projetos.ossystems.com.br