* BlueZ old releases have new checksums @ 2012-01-04 18:14 Denys Dmytriyenko 2012-01-04 20:14 ` Chris Larson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Denys Dmytriyenko @ 2012-01-04 18:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel, openembedded-core All, The main archive of BlueZ/obexd/hcidump releases on kernel.org[1] finally re-appeared after missing for long time since kernel.org compromise. Unfortunately, all previous tarballs have new checksums, breaking builds for anyone w/o previous copy cached. Old copies were also extensively mirrored, so you never know which one you fetch next time... I pinged the upstream, but I doubt it will be changed or fixed in any way. So the proper solution for us would be to upgrade recipes to the latest released versions - bluez-4.97, obexd-0.43 and bluez-hcidump-2.2. Are there any other suggestions? [1] http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/bluetooth/ -- Denys ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: BlueZ old releases have new checksums 2012-01-04 18:14 BlueZ old releases have new checksums Denys Dmytriyenko @ 2012-01-04 20:14 ` Chris Larson 2012-01-04 20:53 ` Khem Raj 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Chris Larson @ 2012-01-04 20:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer; +Cc: openembedded-devel On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org> wrote: > The main archive of BlueZ/obexd/hcidump releases on kernel.org[1] finally > re-appeared after missing for long time since kernel.org compromise. > Unfortunately, all previous tarballs have new checksums, breaking builds for > anyone w/o previous copy cached. Old copies were also extensively mirrored, > so you never know which one you fetch next time... Heh, checksums changing after a security compromise, that's worrisome :) should diff their contents to see what's going on, or whether its just a gzip timestamp change or something. -- Christopher Larson ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: BlueZ old releases have new checksums 2012-01-04 20:14 ` Chris Larson @ 2012-01-04 20:53 ` Khem Raj 2012-01-04 22:02 ` [oe] " Denys Dmytriyenko 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Khem Raj @ 2012-01-04 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer; +Cc: openembedded-devel On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Chris Larson <clarson@kergoth.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org> wrote: >> The main archive of BlueZ/obexd/hcidump releases on kernel.org[1] finally >> re-appeared after missing for long time since kernel.org compromise. >> Unfortunately, all previous tarballs have new checksums, breaking builds for >> anyone w/o previous copy cached. Old copies were also extensively mirrored, >> so you never know which one you fetch next time... > > Heh, checksums changing after a security compromise, that's worrisome > :) should diff their contents to see what's going on, or whether its > just a gzip timestamp change or something. exactly. Make sure the tars are sane > -- > Christopher Larson > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [oe] BlueZ old releases have new checksums 2012-01-04 20:53 ` Khem Raj @ 2012-01-04 22:02 ` Denys Dmytriyenko 2012-01-05 0:16 ` Chris Larson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Denys Dmytriyenko @ 2012-01-04 22:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel; +Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 12:53:25PM -0800, Khem Raj wrote: > On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Chris Larson <clarson@kergoth.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org> wrote: > >> The main archive of BlueZ/obexd/hcidump releases on kernel.org[1] finally > >> re-appeared after missing for long time since kernel.org compromise. > >> Unfortunately, all previous tarballs have new checksums, breaking builds for > >> anyone w/o previous copy cached. Old copies were also extensively mirrored, > >> so you never know which one you fetch next time... > > > > Heh, checksums changing after a security compromise, that's worrisome > > :) should diff their contents to see what's going on, or whether its > > just a gzip timestamp change or something. > > exactly. Make sure the tars are sane Well, according to BlueZ maintainer[1], he gave the correct tarballs to kernel.org people, but for some reason they untarred and re-packed them. There's only 4 bytes difference, presumably timestamp... [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.bluez.kernel/20040/focus=20041 -- Denys ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [oe] BlueZ old releases have new checksums 2012-01-04 22:02 ` [oe] " Denys Dmytriyenko @ 2012-01-05 0:16 ` Chris Larson 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Chris Larson @ 2012-01-05 0:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer; +Cc: openembedded-devel On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 12:53:25PM -0800, Khem Raj wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Chris Larson <clarson@kergoth.com> wrote: >> > On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org> wrote: >> >> The main archive of BlueZ/obexd/hcidump releases on kernel.org[1] finally >> >> re-appeared after missing for long time since kernel.org compromise. >> >> Unfortunately, all previous tarballs have new checksums, breaking builds for >> >> anyone w/o previous copy cached. Old copies were also extensively mirrored, >> >> so you never know which one you fetch next time... >> > >> > Heh, checksums changing after a security compromise, that's worrisome >> > :) should diff their contents to see what's going on, or whether its >> > just a gzip timestamp change or something. >> >> exactly. Make sure the tars are sane > > Well, according to BlueZ maintainer[1], he gave the correct tarballs to > kernel.org people, but for some reason they untarred and re-packed them. > There's only 4 bytes difference, presumably timestamp... /me thinks maintainers should tar -cvO | gzip -n if they're going to use gzip ;) But then, we see it from a rather different perspective than upstreams tend to.. -- Christopher Larson ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-01-05 0:24 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2012-01-04 18:14 BlueZ old releases have new checksums Denys Dmytriyenko 2012-01-04 20:14 ` Chris Larson 2012-01-04 20:53 ` Khem Raj 2012-01-04 22:02 ` [oe] " Denys Dmytriyenko 2012-01-05 0:16 ` Chris Larson
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox