From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 15:36:41 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] package/qt5: bump latest version to 5.9.1 In-Reply-To: <87o9snb1ri.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> 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> <20170714103518.66ca2b7e@windsurf> <87o9snb1ri.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: <20170714153641.0e0af325@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 15:12:49 +0200, Peter Korsgaard wrote: > > 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 ? > > As long as we can find a solution for this problem I don't think we > should move to sperate files for license hashes. We have 2k+ packages > and only a very small subset of those have a version selection (and only > a small subset of that subset will change the license text between > versions), so I prefer a less-clean solution for this special case > instead of adding 2k+ extra files to the tree. Yes, true. So perhaps the easy solution is to search for a hash file in the version-specific sub-folder. If it exists, use it (and only this one). If it doesn't exist, fallback to the one in the package directory. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com