[oe] OEDEM 2009 summary: Death to checksums.ini?

[Phil Blundell]

On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 09:44 +0100, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
> This will create an even bigger mess. Sometimes you need to download two 
> things, this means you will end up with A_MD5SUM, B_MD5SUM, A_SHASUM, 
> B_SHASUM. The main problem with the above is that in contrast to a well defined 
> checksums.ini file we will end up with n-variants of the above trick.

The number of recipes where multiple items need to be downloaded and
checksummed is small: this is a tiny minority of the total.  So,
although I agree that this case will become more ugly, I don't think
this is going to be a common enough problem that it will represent a
very big deal.

> I agree that conceptually the checksum belongs to the URI, but putting it into
> the URI is just creating a horrible mess. It has issues with .inc files, adding 
> a shasum will make the URI not fit in any terminal...
> 
> The best alternatives so far where:
> 	- Place the checksums into the dir of the recipe
> 	- Use a MD5SUM_${URL} = "", SHA256SUM_${URL} = "" syntax

I would be happy with the latter of those suggestions.  I don't think
the former really addresses the problems with the current checksums.ini.

p.