On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Ross Berteig <r...@cheshireeng.com> wrote:
> > BitBake wants *both* MD5 and SHA256 of the tarball that it plans to > download. Since the tarball contains a folder name supplied by URL > parameters, fossil would have to construct the tarball with parameters and > compute both checksums. I don't see any reason to do that work until that > specific tarball is requested, and the path of least resistance is to just > let BitBake compute them the first time. Unfortunately it does case BitBake > to download the same tarball a second time, but on the grand scale of > things that is just an annoyance. > I would guess this derives from the (increasingly less) common practice of projects generating and publishing an "official" tarball and its hashes. Curious it would still want MD5 as this has been deprecated for years in favor of SHA256 or SHA512. Is MD5 actually a Yocto requirement? > > With Git, it can clone a repo and then checkout the requested version for > building from its own clone of the repo. If I had more time and budget, I'd > delve into that mechanism and figure out how to extend BitBake to have the > similar abilities for a fossil repo. If BitBake provides for configuring "generic" command line VCS clients, this should be easy. However, I have noticed an increasing number of open source projects "deprecating" general support for command line clients in favor of "proper" plug-ins. In contrast, many commercial tools continue to support command line clients either along side or instead of plug-ins.
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
