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

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2009/11/11 Phil Blundell <philb at gnu.org>:
> 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.

I'd like things to work with minimal effort, so I would encourage a
solution where, if you create a new recipe, the resulting checksums
are automatically added (automating the dumb and error prone cut &
paste process).
In that view having the checksums in a separate file would help
(although it will require adding a file to the commit which can be
forgotten).

Frans.