[Buildroot] [PATCH next v2] python-certifi: add new package

[Buildroot] [PATCH next v2] python-certifi: add new package

[Yegor Yefremov]

Signed-off-by: Yegor Yefremov <yegorslists@googlemail.com>
---
Changes:
	v2: add MPL incense

 package/Config.in                        |  1 +
 package/python-certifi/Config.in         |  6 ++++++
 package/python-certifi/python-certifi.mk | 14 ++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 package/python-certifi/Config.in
 create mode 100644 package/python-certifi/python-certifi.mk

diff --git a/package/Config.in b/package/Config.in
index a6977ce..cffa8d4 100644
--- a/package/Config.in
+++ b/package/Config.in
@@ -482,6 +482,7 @@ endif
 if BR2_PACKAGE_PYTHON || BR2_PACKAGE_PYTHON3
 menu "external python modules"
 	source "package/python-bottle/Config.in"
+	source "package/python-certifi/Config.in"
 	source "package/python-cffi/Config.in"
 	source "package/python-configobj/Config.in"
 	source "package/python-configshell-fb/Config.in"
diff --git a/package/python-certifi/Config.in b/package/python-certifi/Config.in
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9390b4f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/package/python-certifi/Config.in
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+config BR2_PACKAGE_PYTHON_CERTIFI
+	bool "python-certifi"
+	help
+	  Python package for providing Mozilla's CA Bundle.
+
+	  https://pypi.python.org/pypi/certifi
diff --git a/package/python-certifi/python-certifi.mk b/package/python-certifi/python-certifi.mk
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1458a53
--- /dev/null
+++ b/package/python-certifi/python-certifi.mk
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+################################################################################
+#
+# python-certifi
+#
+################################################################################
+
+PYTHON_CERTIFI_VERSION = 14.05.14
+PYTHON_CERTIFI_SOURCE = certifi-$(PYTHON_CERTIFI_VERSION).tar.gz
+PYTHON_CERTIFI_SITE = https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/c/certifi
+PYTHON_CERTIFI_SETUP_TYPE = setuptools
+PYTHON_CERTIFI_LICENSE = ISC, MPL
+PYTHON_CERTIFI_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE
+
+$(eval $(python-package))
-- 
1.8.3.2

[Buildroot] [PATCH next v2] python-certifi: add new package

[Yann E. MORIN]

Yegor, All,

On 2014-11-22 10:46 +0100, Yegor Yefremov spake thusly:
> Signed-off-by: Yegor Yefremov <yegorslists@googlemail.com>

Please, add a hash file to this package:
    http://nightly.buildroot.org/#adding-packages-hash

Here are the hashes I computed locally, which you can add as-is to the
hash file:

sha1   f53dc8f57aaf6d69c183ebadcec52ece0a55cc3f                         certifi-14.05.14.tar.gz
sha256 1e1bcbacd6357c151ae37cf0290dcc809721d32ce21fd6b7339568f3ddef1b69 certifi-14.05.14.tar.gz

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

> ---
> Changes:
> 	v2: add MPL incense
> 
>  package/Config.in                        |  1 +
>  package/python-certifi/Config.in         |  6 ++++++
>  package/python-certifi/python-certifi.mk | 14 ++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 21 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 package/python-certifi/Config.in
>  create mode 100644 package/python-certifi/python-certifi.mk
> 
> diff --git a/package/Config.in b/package/Config.in
> index a6977ce..cffa8d4 100644
> --- a/package/Config.in
> +++ b/package/Config.in
> @@ -482,6 +482,7 @@ endif
>  if BR2_PACKAGE_PYTHON || BR2_PACKAGE_PYTHON3
>  menu "external python modules"
>  	source "package/python-bottle/Config.in"
> +	source "package/python-certifi/Config.in"
>  	source "package/python-cffi/Config.in"
>  	source "package/python-configobj/Config.in"
>  	source "package/python-configshell-fb/Config.in"
> diff --git a/package/python-certifi/Config.in b/package/python-certifi/Config.in
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..9390b4f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/package/python-certifi/Config.in
> @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
> +config BR2_PACKAGE_PYTHON_CERTIFI
> +	bool "python-certifi"
> +	help
> +	  Python package for providing Mozilla's CA Bundle.
> +
> +	  https://pypi.python.org/pypi/certifi
> diff --git a/package/python-certifi/python-certifi.mk b/package/python-certifi/python-certifi.mk
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..1458a53
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/package/python-certifi/python-certifi.mk
> @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
> +################################################################################
> +#
> +# python-certifi
> +#
> +################################################################################
> +
> +PYTHON_CERTIFI_VERSION = 14.05.14
> +PYTHON_CERTIFI_SOURCE = certifi-$(PYTHON_CERTIFI_VERSION).tar.gz
> +PYTHON_CERTIFI_SITE = https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/c/certifi
> +PYTHON_CERTIFI_SETUP_TYPE = setuptools
> +PYTHON_CERTIFI_LICENSE = ISC, MPL
> +PYTHON_CERTIFI_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE
> +
> +$(eval $(python-package))
> -- 
> 1.8.3.2
> 
> _______________________________________________
> buildroot mailing list
> buildroot at busybox.net
> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot

-- 
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
| +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/attachments/20141122/f4d724a9/attachment.asc>

[Buildroot] [PATCH next v2] python-certifi: add new package

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Dear Yegor Yefremov,

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 10:46:00 +0100, Yegor Yefremov wrote:

> +PYTHON_CERTIFI_VERSION = 14.05.14
> +PYTHON_CERTIFI_SOURCE = certifi-$(PYTHON_CERTIFI_VERSION).tar.gz
> +PYTHON_CERTIFI_SITE = https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/c/certifi
> +PYTHON_CERTIFI_SETUP_TYPE = setuptools
> +PYTHON_CERTIFI_LICENSE = ISC, MPL

Can this be more specific, like to what part the ISC license applies,
and to what part the MPL license applies?

Thanks,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH next v2] python-certifi: add new package

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Dear Yann E. MORIN,

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 18:09:34 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote:

> Here are the hashes I computed locally, which you can add as-is to the
> hash file:
> 
> sha1   f53dc8f57aaf6d69c183ebadcec52ece0a55cc3f                         certifi-14.05.14.tar.gz
> sha256 1e1bcbacd6357c151ae37cf0290dcc809721d32ce21fd6b7339568f3ddef1b69 certifi-14.05.14.tar.gz

Why do we suggest to have two hashes? Isn't sha265 sufficient?

Also, is it necessary to align the different columns? Should it be done
with tabs or spaces? I've seen different solutions being used.

Thanks,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH next v2] python-certifi: add new package

[Yann E. MORIN]

Thomas, All,

On 2014-11-22 19:08 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly:
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 18:09:34 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> 
> > Here are the hashes I computed locally, which you can add as-is to the
> > hash file:
> > 
> > sha1   f53dc8f57aaf6d69c183ebadcec52ece0a55cc3f                         certifi-14.05.14.tar.gz
> > sha256 1e1bcbacd6357c151ae37cf0290dcc809721d32ce21fd6b7339568f3ddef1b69 certifi-14.05.14.tar.gz
> 
> Why do we suggest to have two hashes? Isn't sha265 sufficient?

As Gustavo said, that's because sha1 and sha256 are two different hash
mechanisms, and it's better to have both.

So I was following his advice, even though I don't mind adding just the
sha256.

> Also, is it necessary to align the different columns? Should it be done
> with tabs or spaces? I've seen different solutions being used.

I don't mind not aligning the fields, though I find it more convenient
to read if they are.

If they get aligned, I think we should use spaces; tabs do not help
because people may have different tabwidths.

Also, aligning with spaces is what we are doing for _PREMISSIONS and
_USERS, so I think that's OK to align.

Also, the manual states:

    Note: the number of spaces does not matter, so one can use spaces to
    properly align the different fields.

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

-- 
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
| +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'

[Buildroot] [PATCH next v2] python-certifi: add new package

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Dear Yann E. MORIN,

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 19:56:40 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote:

> > > sha1   f53dc8f57aaf6d69c183ebadcec52ece0a55cc3f                         certifi-14.05.14.tar.gz
> > > sha256 1e1bcbacd6357c151ae37cf0290dcc809721d32ce21fd6b7339568f3ddef1b69 certifi-14.05.14.tar.gz
> > 
> > Why do we suggest to have two hashes? Isn't sha265 sufficient?
> 
> As Gustavo said, that's because sha1 and sha256 are two different hash
> mechanisms, and it's better to have both.
> 
> So I was following his advice, even though I don't mind adding just the
> sha256.

Hum. We need some decision here :)

> > Also, is it necessary to align the different columns? Should it be done
> > with tabs or spaces? I've seen different solutions being used.
> 
> I don't mind not aligning the fields, though I find it more convenient
> to read if they are.
> 
> If they get aligned, I think we should use spaces; tabs do not help
> because people may have different tabwidths.
> 
> Also, aligning with spaces is what we are doing for _PREMISSIONS and
> _USERS, so I think that's OK to align.
> 
> Also, the manual states:
> 
>     Note: the number of spaces does not matter, so one can use spaces to
>     properly align the different fields.

And Peter, when reviewing the scancpan script, which did align things
with spaces, was wondering why the script was doing this weird
indentation.

We also need some decision here :-)

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH next v2] python-certifi: add new package

[Yegor Yefremov]

On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Thomas Petazzoni
<thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> Dear Yann E. MORIN,
>
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 19:56:40 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
>
>> > > sha1   f53dc8f57aaf6d69c183ebadcec52ece0a55cc3f                         certifi-14.05.14.tar.gz
>> > > sha256 1e1bcbacd6357c151ae37cf0290dcc809721d32ce21fd6b7339568f3ddef1b69 certifi-14.05.14.tar.gz
>> >
>> > Why do we suggest to have two hashes? Isn't sha265 sufficient?
>>
>> As Gustavo said, that's because sha1 and sha256 are two different hash
>> mechanisms, and it's better to have both.
>>
>> So I was following his advice, even though I don't mind adding just the
>> sha256.
>
> Hum. We need some decision here :)
>
>> > Also, is it necessary to align the different columns? Should it be done
>> > with tabs or spaces? I've seen different solutions being used.
>>
>> I don't mind not aligning the fields, though I find it more convenient
>> to read if they are.
>>
>> If they get aligned, I think we should use spaces; tabs do not help
>> because people may have different tabwidths.
>>
>> Also, aligning with spaces is what we are doing for _PREMISSIONS and
>> _USERS, so I think that's OK to align.
>>
>> Also, the manual states:
>>
>>     Note: the number of spaces does not matter, so one can use spaces to
>>     properly align the different fields.
>
> And Peter, when reviewing the scancpan script, which did align things
> with spaces, was wondering why the script was doing this weird
> indentation.
>
> We also need some decision here :-)

How should I include hash for this package?

Yegor

[Buildroot] [PATCH next v2] python-certifi: add new package

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Dear Yegor Yefremov,

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:16:34 +0100, Yegor Yefremov wrote:

> How should I include hash for this package?

Don't worry about the hash for now. I'll commit either one hash or two
hashes, and I won't really care about the indentation of the hash file.

The real question is the license one.

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH next v2] python-certifi: add new package

[Yegor Yefremov]

On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Thomas Petazzoni
<thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> Dear Yegor Yefremov,
>
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:16:34 +0100, Yegor Yefremov wrote:
>
>> How should I include hash for this package?
>
> Don't worry about the hash for now. I'll commit either one hash or two
> hashes, and I won't really care about the indentation of the hash file.
>
> The real question is the license one.

I'd add this:

PYTHON_CERTIFI_LICENSE = Python code: ISC, cacert.pem: MPL

The certifi author didn't answer my mail request.

Yegor

[Buildroot] [PATCH next v2] python-certifi: add new package

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Dear Yegor Yefremov,

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:32:36 +0100, Yegor Yefremov wrote:

> I'd add this:
> 
> PYTHON_CERTIFI_LICENSE = Python code: ISC, cacert.pem: MPL

It should be:

PYTHON_CERTIFI_LICENSE = ISC (Python code), MPL-2.0 (cacert.pem)

Thanks,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH next v2] python-certifi: add new package

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> writes:

 > Dear Yann E. MORIN,
 > On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 19:56:40 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote:

 >> > > sha1   f53dc8f57aaf6d69c183ebadcec52ece0a55cc3f                         certifi-14.05.14.tar.gz
 >> > > sha256 1e1bcbacd6357c151ae37cf0290dcc809721d32ce21fd6b7339568f3ddef1b69 certifi-14.05.14.tar.gz
 >> > 
 >> > Why do we suggest to have two hashes? Isn't sha265 sufficient?
 >> 
 >> As Gustavo said, that's because sha1 and sha256 are two different hash
 >> mechanisms, and it's better to have both.
 >> 
 >> So I was following his advice, even though I don't mind adding just the
 >> sha256.

 > Hum. We need some decision here :)

Ehh, I don't really know. I believe we have agreed on adding an extra
hash if upstream only publishes a weak one (E.G. md5), but requiring
both sha1 and sha256 is imho overkill.

In general, I would say lets use sha256 if we need to calculate it
ourselves, and otherwise whatever upstream publishes (unless it is md5,
then we add sha256 ourselves).


>> Note: the number of spaces does not matter, so one can use spaces to
 >> properly align the different fields.

 > And Peter, when reviewing the scancpan script, which did align things
 > with spaces, was wondering why the script was doing this weird
 > indentation.

 > We also need some decision here :-)

Well, there's the spaces between the hashtype and the hash, and then
there's the space between the hash and the filename. I find it nicer to
read if the hashes are aligned, and I prefer to be able to use the
output of ${foo}sum directly for the hash + filename, which I why I
suggested:

type\thash  filename

(two spaces between hash and filename) during the scanpan review, so you
can do stuff like:

for i in md5 sha256; do echo -en "$i\t"; ${i}sum <file>; done > foo.hash

But it is not something I feel strongly about. Consistency between the
different packages would be good though.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard