From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vicente Olivert Riera Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 10:25:36 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] ser2net: Add a hash file In-Reply-To: <20141008112001.2e0b8b9b@free-electrons.com> References: <1412692250-13513-1-git-send-email-Vincent.Riera@imgtec.com> <1412692250-13513-2-git-send-email-Vincent.Riera@imgtec.com> <20141007192331.0908bbcd@free-electrons.com> <5434FC83.3070303@imgtec.com> <20141008112001.2e0b8b9b@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <54350310.8060802@imgtec.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Thomas Petazzoni, On 10/08/2014 10:20 AM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Dear Vicente Olivert Riera, > > On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 09:57:39 +0100, Vicente Olivert Riera wrote: > >>> Why having all those hashes? >> >> Why not? Those are all the hashes supported in Buildroot. The more we >> have the better. > > I disagree: more hashes means more work to do when bumping the package. > Either one strong hash, or two weaker hashes should be sufficient IMO. More work? I disagree. I created the hash file with a one-liner command: for i in md5 sha1 sha224 sha256 sha384 sha512; do echo $i `${i}sum ser2net-2.10.0.tar.gz` >> ../package/ser2net/ser2net.hash; done > Something to be discussed at the meeting maybe? > >>> And the comment indicating how they have >>> been found is missing (locally computed? found on the upstream web >>> site). >> >> I haven't added any comment because those hashes were locally computed. >> Do I need to add a comment explain that? > > Yes, I believe so. No problem, I can resend the patch adding that comment. Or maybe it's easier if you or Peter do it, since is a trivial change and you are the ones who will commit the patch at the end. > Best regards, > > Thomas > -- Vincent