Re: [docs] [PATCH 1/2] documentation: update sources mirror URL

[Jon Mason <jdmason@kudzu.us>]

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 10:41 AM Michael Opdenacker
<michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jon
>
> Thanks for the proposed update !
>
> On 10/6/21 12:45 AM, Jon Mason wrote:
> > The URL for the sources mirror no longer works.  Update to the new
> > location.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jon Mason <jdmason@kudzu.us>
> > ---
> >  documentation/ref-manual/faq.rst       | 15 ++++++++-------
> >  documentation/ref-manual/variables.rst |  8 ++++----
> >  2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/documentation/ref-manual/faq.rst b/documentation/ref-manual/faq.rst
> > index d3a603d4a438..f06abc84ee6f 100644
> > --- a/documentation/ref-manual/faq.rst
> > +++ b/documentation/ref-manual/faq.rst
> > @@ -302,10 +302,10 @@ attempt before any others by adding something like the following to the
> >  ``local.conf`` configuration file::
> >
> >     PREMIRRORS:prepend = "\
> > -       git://.*/.* http://www.yoctoproject.org/sources/ \n \
> > -       ftp://.*/.* http://www.yoctoproject.org/sources/ \n \
> > -       http://.*/.* http://www.yoctoproject.org/sources/ \n \
> > -       https://.*/.* http://www.yoctoproject.org/sources/ \n"
> > +       git://.*/.* http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/mirror/sources/ \n \
> > +       ftp://.*/.* http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/mirror/sources/ \n \
> > +       http://.*/.* http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/mirror/sources/ \n \
> > +       https://.*/.* http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/mirror/sources/ \n"
>
>
> Hey, doesn't it sound weird to show an example that proposes to use http
> when https is usually recommended?
> What about proposing https://downloads.yoctoproject.org/mirror/sources/
> instead?
>
> Or we don't really care because we use source checksums anyway?
>
> Just my two cents. I don't mind accepting the patch as is.

A quick and dirty grep of the trees shows many occurrences of
downloads.yoctoproject.org without https.  Perhaps it would be good to
correct all of these in a follow-on patch.  I can do a quick patch of
all of these and get that out in the next day or so.

Also, looking at documentation/profile-manual/usage.rst (where most of
the occurrences in the docs are), shouldn't we have a newer kernel
than 2.6.19.2 as an example?  I mean, it's almost 15 years old.

Thanks,
Jon

> Thanks again,
> Michael.
>
> --
> Michael Opdenacker, Bootlin
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
> https://bootlin.com
>