On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 09:45:13AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > > > Using checksums.ini to store checksums was the old default method > > and is not recommended any more. It is recommended now to store > > checksums in SRC_URIs of the corresponding recipes. Is it more clear > > now? > > got it, thanks. so, based on that, i assume there are no plans for > an "sha*sum" SRC_URI parameter as it would seem that an MD5 sum is > more than sufficient to identify simple download corruption. an > additional sha*sum parameter would be overkill. > > also, given that only about a dozen .bb files incorporate an md5sum > parameter at the moment, it's going to be quite some time before this > migration is complete and checksums.ini goes away, unless there's some > kind of plan to automate inserting that parameter in each and every > .bb file.
The initial post from Phil[1] I linked before has this at the end: =============== Next steps: - figure out a way to implement sha256sum checking, either by extending the code in bitbake's fetcher or by providing equivalent functionality in base.bbclass - work out a migration strategy: is it feasible to splice the existing checksums into the SRC_URIs programmatically? RP thinks yes. PB suggests leaving the existing checksums.ini as read-only and switching to checksums incrementally for new packages. RP: can make a git hook to allow deletion from checksums.ini but no other changes. =============== BTW, shasum is helpful, as couple years ago it was proven md5 is prone to collisions... [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.openembedded/27465 -- Denys _______________________________________________ Bitbake-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bitbake-dev
