2009/11/11 Phil Blundell <[email protected]>: > On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 09:44 +0100, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote: >> This will create an even bigger mess. Sometimes you need to download two >> things, this means you will end up with A_MD5SUM, B_MD5SUM, A_SHASUM, >> B_SHASUM. The main problem with the above is that in contrast to a well >> defined >> checksums.ini file we will end up with n-variants of the above trick. > > The number of recipes where multiple items need to be downloaded and > checksummed is small: this is a tiny minority of the total. So, > although I agree that this case will become more ugly, I don't think > this is going to be a common enough problem that it will represent a > very big deal. > >> I agree that conceptually the checksum belongs to the URI, but putting it >> into >> the URI is just creating a horrible mess. It has issues with .inc files, >> adding >> a shasum will make the URI not fit in any terminal... >> >> The best alternatives so far where: >> - Place the checksums into the dir of the recipe >> - Use a MD5SUM_${URL} = "", SHA256SUM_${URL} = "" syntax > > I would be happy with the latter of those suggestions. I don't think > the former really addresses the problems with the current checksums.ini.
I'd like things to work with minimal effort, so I would encourage a solution where, if you create a new recipe, the resulting checksums are automatically added (automating the dumb and error prone cut & paste process). In that view having the checksums in a separate file would help (although it will require adding a file to the commit which can be forgotten). Frans. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
