From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [80.91.229.12] (helo=lo.gmane.org) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1N6mdJ-0002rw-7s for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:51:20 +0100 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1N6mc8-00085q-8h for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:50:04 +0100 Received: from s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl ([85.145.118.37]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:50:04 +0100 Received: from k.kooi by s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:50:04 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org From: Koen Kooi Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:42:16 +0100 Message-ID: References: <200911070406.18094.holger+oe@freyther.de> <4AF574B5.2010802@mwester.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.3pre) Gecko/20090811 Shredder/3.0b4pre In-Reply-To: <4AF574B5.2010802@mwester.net> Sender: news X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 80.91.229.12 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: gcho-openembedded-devel@m.gmane.org X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on linuxtogo.org); Unknown failure Subject: Re: what to do with wrong checksum X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:51:20 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 07-11-09 14:23, Mike Westerhof wrote: > Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: > ... >> >> Reluctantly updated checksums.ini >> >> Frans > > But of course there's no magic that will remove the old cached tarball > out of one's downloads directory when this sort of thing happens. > (Busybox has been known to do this, too) > > What do folks think we should do about that when it occurs? > a) support two entries (old and new) in checksums.ini > b) do nothing (leave as is) > c) add some sort of support so that the user gets additional information > with the new checksum match failure explaining that the checksum was > updated and they need to manually remove the old (bad) tarball d) rename the tarball slighty and mirror in on a known good server (e.g. angstrom sourcemirror) and have OE use that. regards, Koen