From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 10:35:18 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] package/qt5: bump latest version to 5.9.1 In-Reply-To: <2a450d8b-10a6-2be9-b7a7-a659a47bffb0@mind.be> References: <1499796056-841-1-git-send-email-joshua.henderson@microchip.com> <7248234a-60d3-3bf5-0954-ff0442609136@mind.be> <69cf264e-bb78-3823-e165-5a3378806741@microchip.com> <0db10485-c5ee-5097-97f4-aaadd2535761@microchip.com> <20170713095003.057fb2bc@windsurf.orange-hotspot.com> <20170713153220.GA3002@scaer> <2a450d8b-10a6-2be9-b7a7-a659a47bffb0@mind.be> Message-ID: <20170714103518.66ca2b7e@windsurf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 00:46:50 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > Or we could look for pkg-$(VERSION).hash and fall back to pkg.hash if that > doesn't exist. But it does complicate the code somewhat. On my side, I continue to think that mixing in the same .hash file the hashes for download artefacts (tarballs, patches, etc.) and hashes for files that are extracted from the tarball is very confusing. Shouldn't we have a separate hash files for the license files, and have this file in the per-version subdirectory ? There's admittedly a down-side to this: for most packages, we would have one hash file containing a single hash for the tarball, and another hash file containing a single hash for the single license file. Maybe that's a bit too much. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com