From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Baruch Siach Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:04:09 +0300 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] [autobuild] package/bwm-ng: fix build failures with gcc-5 In-Reply-To: <20150816093510.GA3650@free.fr> References: <1439500078-22674-1-git-send-email-yann.morin.1998@free.fr> <20150814141516.GC25261@tarshish> <20150814144542.GC4017@free.fr> <20150816093510.GA3650@free.fr> Message-ID: <20150816100409.GD7325@sapphire.tkos.co.il> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi Yann, On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 11:35:10AM +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > On 2015-08-14 16:45 +0200, Yann E. MORIN spake thusly: > > On 2015-08-14 17:15 +0300, Baruch Siach spake thusly: > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:07:58PM +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > > > > diff --git a/package/bwm-ng/bwm-ng.hash b/package/bwm-ng/bwm-ng.hash > > > > index 6bb8355..44272b1 100644 > > > > --- a/package/bwm-ng/bwm-ng.hash > > > > +++ b/package/bwm-ng/bwm-ng.hash > > > > @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@ > > > > # Locally calculated > > > > -sha256 c1134358e268329d438b0996399003b0f0b966034fb4b5b138761c2f3c62ffdd bwm-ng-0.6.tar.gz > > > > +sha1 9445885d05e2430ca174739e3aba343afce94076 bwm-ng-0.6.1.tar.gz > > > > > > Why sha1? > > > > Ah, I forgot to update the comment. The sha1 hash is from the SF.net > > download page, and it only lists sha1 and md5 (click on the (i) icon on > > the left of the download link to see the hashes): > > > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/bwmng/files/bwmng/0.6/ > > > > I'll fix the comment and resubmit. Thanks for noticing! :-) > > Now that I think about it, we are no longer downloading from DF.net, but > directly from the new official location: > http://www.gropp.org/?id=projects&sub=bwm-ng > > And this new location does not provide a hash... :-( > > But the file is also available on SF.net which provides this sha1. > > So I wonder: should we point to the SF.net provided sha1, even though > we're not downloading from there? Since the new bwm-ng website explicitly states that sf.net "will not be used anymore", and provided the dubious reputation of sf.net as of late, I don't think we can rely on their hashes in the long run, at least for this project. I vote for locally computed sha256 in this case. baruch -- http://baruch.siach.name/blog/ ~. .~ Tk Open Systems =}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{= - baruch at tkos.co.il - tel: +972.2.679.5364, http://www.tkos.co.il -