From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yann E. MORIN Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:55:45 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] .hash files for all packages? In-Reply-To: <20150811101333.2fd48c22@free-electrons.com> References: <1438682248-29767-1-git-send-email-joerg.krause@embedded.rocks> <20150810162227.6a3cde19@free-electrons.com> <1439217249.5186.18.camel@embedded.rocks> <20150810205427.156aa7b9@free-electrons.com> <20150810204725.GG3676@free.fr> <20150811101333.2fd48c22@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <20150811085545.GA3627@free.fr> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Thomas, All, On 2015-08-11 10:13 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly: > On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 22:47:25 +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > > I think the overall goal is to have .hash files for all packages. Having > > a .hash files for all packages would allow us to make hashes truly > > mandatory, and make a missing .hash file an error, rather than the > > warning it is today. > > > > Which in turn would ensure we have hashes for all packages for which it > > makes sense. > > > > Of course, that would mean adding a 'none' hash for those packages for > > which we can't have ahash (like the github helper, or any git/svn/... > > checkouts. > > > > So, what J?rg did was in my opinion correct, even if we did not > > explicitly document that! ;-) > > Ok. I'm a bit worried about having 220 useless hash files, The problem we have when there is no .hash file, is that we can't differentiate those two cases; - there is no hash for this package, because it does not make sense (github helper, git/svn/foo checkout...) - we forgot to add a hash for that package. I can understand that having lots of similarly looking files that jsut say "don't do hash checks" might seem a bit worrying at first. But I do think we really do need a way to explicitly say so. Adding Gustavo in Cc because we already talked about that with him, and last we discussed this, I think he agreed (well, I have IRC logs to back that claim up! ;-] ) > so I'd like > to hear the opinion of others on that. And once we made our decision, > document it more clearly. Yes, it should be throughly documented. But note: this will have an impact on BR2_EXTERNAL trees; they will also have to provide .hash files for their packages. 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. | '------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'