From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 16:21:59 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 13/16 v5] core/legal-info: generate a hash of all saved files In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160319162159.06219d6c@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Yann, On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 18:49:26 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > Having a hash of the saved files can be interesting for the recipient to > verify the integrity of the files. > > We remove the warning file earlier, to exclude it from the hash list. > > Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" > Cc: Luca Ceresoli > Acked-by: Luca Ceresoli > Tested-by: Luca Ceresoli It's adding more stuff to the main Makefile (while I'd like to remove stuff from that Makefile), for something that is quite specific. But OK, I can see the usefulness of this hash file, so: Acked-by: Thomas Petazzoni However, I'm really surprised by this LEGAL_WARNINGS file. It's exactly the type of hidden file (like .applied_patches) I don't like. One example where it fails badly is if you interrupt "legal-info" in the middle. Since the legal-warning and legal-warning-pkg macro only concatenate to this file, then at the end of the second, non-interrupted, make invocation, you would got some warnings from the first run. Why aren't we simply displaying the warnings as we go? Probably because they were mixed with some other messages (like the messages about download some stuff). But in this case, we can serialize the steps by having all the download done first, then all the "aggregation" done, so that warnings can be displayed directly without this hidden file. Of course, this is unrelated to your change, and more a comment for Luca. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com