From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 14:26:34 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v7 0/8] toolchain: better handle hashes (branch yem/dl-hash-toolchains) In-Reply-To: <1429740521-31943-1-git-send-email-arnout@mind.be> References: <1429740521-31943-1-git-send-email-arnout@mind.be> Message-ID: <20150425142634.516e800e@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 00:08:33 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) wrote: > Arnout Vandecappelle (1): > uclibc: update hash for arc > > Yann E. MORIN (7): > package/gcc: add hashes > package/binutils: add hashes > package/uclibc: add missing hash for eXtensa > support/download: add possibility to not fail on missing hash > toolchain/external: ignore missing hash for custom downloaded toolchain > package/uclibc: ignore missing hash for snapshots > support/download: restore mandatory check of hashes Series applied. One thing that bothered me a little bit is that when the hash of the tarball downloaded from upstream doesn't match the one we have in BR, we gracefully fall back on downloading the tarball from sources.buildroot.net. This is good for users as it means their build succeeds. But not so good from the point of view of noticing that upstream has for some reason changed the tarball. Any opinion about this? Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com