From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 23:06:40 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCHv2 10/21] Makefile: move source-check outside of noconfig_targets In-Reply-To: <20150413204916.GJ29025@free.fr> References: <1428856685-4403-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <1428856685-4403-11-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <20150413204916.GJ29025@free.fr> Message-ID: <20150413230640.10513197@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Yann E. MORIN, On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 22:49:16 +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > Reviewed-by: "Yann E. MORIN" > Tested-by: "Yann E. MORIN" > > However, I noticed that source-check tries to go to the mirror. For > example, cjson fails to download from svn for me here, and it falls back > to looking on the mirror, and thus concludes it exists. > > Shouldn't source-check be limited to looking at the upstream locations? > > However, not a blocker, since it;s already the behaviour we have. Yes, the behavior you're observing is indeed the current behavior as far as I know, so my patches are not changing this. Indeed, we could discuss whether source-check should check only primary site + upstream site, or primary site + upstream site + sources.b.o. >From a BR maintenance point of view, checking only primary site + upstream is probably better as it means we can get notified when an upstream has disappeared. But from a BR user point of view, what's important is that the source code remains available *somewhere*, be it from upstream or sources.b.o. So I'm not very decided on this. Opinions welcome. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com