On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko <de...@denix.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:29:56AM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote: >> On 24-01-10 08:06, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: >> > On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 09:06:13PM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote: >> >> does [1] still describe the official policy to add checksums? Or is >> > >> > No >> > >> >> putting them into the recipes preferred nowadays? >> > >> > Yes >> >> I think not! The new format: >> >> * is not documented > > I think there were plenty of emails describing the new format. Need to put it > all in a Wiki page, agree. > >> * it has no tools to autogenerate it > > Give me few minutes - I'll send something to address this point. > >> * has not been agreed on in any way. > > Actually, specifying checksums in corresponding recipes was agreed on during > the OEDEM in November. Using additional variable flags in base.bbclass was > added by Phil, since bitbake cannot handle SHA256 sums in SRC_URI. Although, > Richard mentioned he'd like to get it implemented in bitbake at some point: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.bitbake.devel/1089/focus=1115 > >> As an experiment I tried to use it for a branch at work and I >> *absolutely* hate the workflow needed for the new format. > > You should have warned me! :) I thought you completely switched to the new > method and liked it... :)
I think it saves unneeded complete parse just for adding one checksum to the checksum.ini file. While the old method has tools and workflow in place. Same could be done for new method too. > > -- > Denys > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel > _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
