From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 21:18:27 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] package/wqy-zenhei: new package In-Reply-To: <12678409-b5dc-71fa-f0d1-9caf625f75c5@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20201204141737.27942-1-klaus@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20210102184224.13096374@windsurf> <12678409-b5dc-71fa-f0d1-9caf625f75c5@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Message-ID: <20210104211827.762fa2b8@windsurf.home> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello Klaus, On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 16:42:39 -0300 Klaus Heinrich Kiwi wrote: > > Indeed for consistency reason, we try to only use the lower-case > > package name as the short prompt for packags. > > I was puzzled by this comment so I looked at the commit and I think you > meant to say that you removed the "(Free Chinese-capable fonts)" from the bool. > That makes sense, thanks! Gah, absolutely. I made a bogus copy/paste which made my whole explanation confusing indeed, but it seems you understood what I meant anyway :-) > > Indicating the URL from which the tarball is downloaded and then the > > hash calculated locally is not very useful. Also, SourceForge provides > > md5 and sha1 hashes, and the hash of the license file was missing. So, > > I've changed to: > > I understand the md5 and sha1 hashes that I completely missed, but couldn't decode why the locally computed/calculated > sha256 is not useful. The locally computed sha256 is useful. What was not is the comment: # locally calculated from http://.....tar.gz because it's obvious from where it has been calculated, so we tend to say just: # locally calculated or, if indeed there was another verification method: # locally calculated, after checking the signature with ... Does that make sense? But really, this is very tiny minor detail. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com