From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnout Vandecappelle Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 23:10:49 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 3/3] vboot-utils: remove hash file In-Reply-To: <20151230225333.171a6c4c@free-electrons.com> References: <05e1570e0377fc9e913819765ecb8e488b6b6c1a.1451483256.git.alex.suykov@gmail.com> <20151230160016.14524b1f@free-electrons.com> <56844F79.3080903@mind.be> <20151230225333.171a6c4c@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <56845669.3050005@mind.be> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 30-12-15 22:53, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Arnout, > > On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 22:41:13 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > >>> I *think* this was part of the conclusion we had at the latest >>> Buildroot Developers Meeting, even if the write up at >>> http://elinux.org/Buildroot:DeveloperDaysELCE2015 doesn't make this >>> completely clear. >> >> I think we didn't get to a clear conclusion, except about the github hashes. > > OK, so what do we do ? IIRC the main reason why we didn't fully go for the "add hash files for all packages" approach was that we would need to add an empty hash file for about 300 packages. But then we discovered that github could have hash files, but we weren't entirely sure yet if that was really true. So I think now we can safely conclude that a hash file should be added for all packages, even if it just contains 'none' hashes. It is definitely an advantage to be able to distinguish packages that should still get a hash from packages of which we already decided that the hash should be 'none'. Regards, Arnout -- Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500 Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle GPG fingerprint: 7493 020B C7E3 8618 8DEC 222C 82EB F404 F9AC 0DDF