From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7E3EC433F5 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 08:42:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay2-d.mail.gandi.net (relay2-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.194]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web10.8874.1633596138142929815 for ; Thu, 07 Oct 2021 01:42:18 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=missing; spf=pass (domain: bootlin.com, ip: 217.70.183.194, mailfrom: michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com) Received: (Authenticated sender: michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com) by relay2-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DC83740008; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 08:42:15 +0000 (UTC) Cc: docs@lists.yoctoproject.org, bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [bitbake-devel] [docs] [PATCH 1/2] documentation: update sources mirror URL To: Richard Purdie , Jon Mason References: <20211005224513.14134-1-jdmason@kudzu.us> <35bcdc42-9ed6-5232-c94e-c69f3fd7af94@bootlin.com> <755f3e7bd1d40628a911b9c1d165785ad6d5a494.camel@linuxfoundation.org> From: Michael Opdenacker Organization: Bootlin Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 10:42:15 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <755f3e7bd1d40628a911b9c1d165785ad6d5a494.camel@linuxfoundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US List-Id: X-Webhook-Received: from li982-79.members.linode.com [45.33.32.79] by aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org with HTTPS for ; Thu, 07 Oct 2021 08:42:20 -0000 X-Groupsio-URL: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/bitbake-devel/message/12737 Hi, On 10/7/21 12:17 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Wed, 2021-10-06 at 15:53 -0400, Jon Mason wrote: >> >>> 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 >>>> --- >>>> 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. OK to do it as a follow-up patch. This way, I can already take yours (at least the ones for yocto-docs, which I maintain). >> >> 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. > Careful, some of us remember working on the 2.6.19 kernel and have patches in it > :) I can take care of this one too. > > I don't think we've worried too much about http vs https for the downloads as > they are checksumed but it is probably cleaner just to convert them. Agreed, but let's do it as a follow-up patch. Cheers, Michael. -- Michael Opdenacker, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com