[oe] checksums situation

[Tom Rini]

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:28:46AM -0500, Philip Balister wrote:
> Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
>> Am Montag, den 23.02.2009, 23:46 -0700 schrieb Tom Rini:
>>> I'm going to make a different suggestion.  Lets just drop it. 
>>
>> I'm in favour of this. I don't think they give us the safety we want and
>> they introduce more inconvenience.
>
> Drop checksum checking? I am not in favour of this. The check does  
> provide valuable reassurance that the source's are not changing in  
> "funny" ways. This is valuable data for many people.
>
> We have ways of disabling the checks for people who are less concerned  
> with image integrity.
>
> I agree the current implementation is not perfect, but it is a good  
> compromise.
>
> The only thing I would like to see is a way to keep a local checksums  
> file for people using overlays and other out of tree sw.

So in the case of "I care if the file changed under me" what we have now
is OK.  But it's worthless in the case of "I care that the file is what
upstream says it should be".

-- 
Tom Rini