On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 09:41:37AM -0700, Chris Larson wrote: > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Martin Jansa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > * unify OE_STRICT_CHECKSUMS and OE_ALLOW_INSECURE_DOWNLOADS, one option > > for insane people should be enough, when the later is enabled, don't > > raise Exception even for missing md5sum/oe_sha256sum command or > > different checksums > > > > I find it very useful to distinguish between the missing checksum and > invalid checksum cases. The latter should really never be allowed, at all, > period, imo, but the missing checksum should have an option. If we aren't > ready to remove the ability to allow invalid, then we need to be able to > control the two cases independently, or via two different values in the > variable that controls the behavior.
OK fair enough, I've expected this.. (that's also why it's RFC :)). Do you agree that with enabled OE_ALLOW_INSECURE_DOWNLOADS it should continue even when it's not possible to check checksum (like missing md5sum/oe_sha256sum command)?. > * show note, when there are checksums only in checksums.ini (prepare for > > script for moving all to recipes) > > > > This sounds good, though it may be something best relegated to an explicit > sanity check, depending on how much it clutters the output. May want to log > it to a file like tmp/legacy-staging.log, also. > > > > * parse checksums.ini only when there is no checksum in recipe (could be > > faster, but for more checked items in SRC_URI it is parsed repeatedly) > > > > "Could be" .. sounds like this isn't ready to go in yet, need to do > profiling. Changing something because it "could" be good is best done in > proof of concept code, not as a part of a single patch like this one. Both those points are assuming I'll be allowed to push "recipes: move checksums from checksums.ini to recipes", which is being prepared ATM with -c fetchall on all recipes. After this patch both bb.note output as well as parsing checksums.ini should be needed only in rare cases. > > * if one checksum doesn't match then count and show both (md5 as well as > > sha256) - usefull for copy&paste checksums for new recipe. Thanks for comments, -- uin:136542059 jid:[email protected] Jansa Martin sip:[email protected] JaMa _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
