Buildroot Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jerzy Grzegorek <jerzy.grzegorek@trzebnica.net>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] package: fix github download URL
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:24:26 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <524ABEFA.8080804@trzebnica.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <524AAA6D.8000103@mind.be>


Hi Arnout,

Thanks for the feedback.


> On 09/26/13 13:43, Jerzy Grzegorek wrote:
>> diff --git a/package/cpuload/cpuload.mk b/package/cpuload/cpuload.mk
>> index e0b8ccf..d00c3a4 100644
>> --- a/package/cpuload/cpuload.mk
>> +++ b/package/cpuload/cpuload.mk
>> @@ -4,8 +4,8 @@
>>   #
>> ################################################################################
>>
>> -CPULOAD_VERSION = v0.3
>> -CPULOAD_SITE 
>> =http://github.com/kelvincheung/cpuload/tarball/$(CPULOAD_VERSION)
>> +CPULOAD_SITE 
>> =https://github.com/kelvincheung/cpuload/tarball/v$(CPULOAD_VERSION)
>>   CPULOAD_LICENSE = GPLv2
>
>  Not that it's a big deal to me, but I don't agree with the concept of 
> this change. The meaning of this URL is that you export a certain tag 
> from a git repository. It is conceptually not the same as a release 
> tarball that a project creates. Therefore, I think the VERSION should 
> be exactly the same as the tag name, so that it stays as close as 
> possible as what we would have if we used the git site method.
>

Take into account that if tag has prefix, BR generates tarball with 
weird name.
For instance for libcec:
tag: libcec-2.1.1
LIBCEC_VERSION = libcec-2.1.1
LIBCEC_SITE = 
https://github.com/Pulse-Eight/libcec/tarball/$(LIBCEC_VERSION)
tarball name downloaded by BR: libcec-libcec-2.1.1.tar.gz

but when
LIBCEC_VERSION = 2.1.1
LIBCEC_SITE = 
https://github.com/Pulse-Eight/libcec/tarball/libcec-$(LIBCEC_VERSION)
the tarball name generated by github matches the one from BR: 
libcec-2.1.1.tar.gz

Additionally there are a few packages in BR with that approach,
e.g. civetweb, mongrel2, sqlcipher


Regards,
Jerzy


>
>  Also you change the URL to https here. With the recent problems with 
> https URLs that we've seen on the autobuilders recently, I wonder if 
> this is a good idea?
>
>
>  Regards,
>  Arnout

  reply	other threads:[~2013-10-01 12:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-09-26 11:43 [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] package: fix github download URL Jerzy Grzegorek
2013-09-27  7:30 ` Thomas De Schampheleire
2013-09-27  8:45   ` Jerzy Grzegorek
2013-10-01 10:56 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2013-10-01 12:24   ` Jerzy Grzegorek [this message]
2013-10-01 18:58     ` Thomas Petazzoni
2013-10-02  9:48       ` Jerzy Grzegorek

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=524ABEFA.8080804@trzebnica.net \
    --to=jerzy.grzegorek@trzebnica.net \
    --cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox