[oe] Official policy to list checksums

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 25-01-10 02:56, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:29:56AM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> On 24-01-10 08:06, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 09:06:13PM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote:
>>>> does [1] still describe the official policy to add checksums? Or is
>>>
>>> No
>>>
>>>> putting them into the recipes preferred nowadays?
>>>
>>> Yes
>>
>> I think not! The new format:
>>
>> * is not documented
> 
> I think there were plenty of emails describing the new format. Need to put it 
> all in a Wiki page, agree.

>> * it has no tools to autogenerate it
> 
> Give me few minutes - I'll send something to address this point.
> 
>> * has not been agreed on in any way.
> 
> Actually, specifying checksums in corresponding recipes was agreed on during 
> the OEDEM in November. Using additional variable flags in base.bbclass was 
> added by Phil, since bitbake cannot handle SHA256 sums in SRC_URI. Although, 
> Richard mentioned he'd like to get it implemented in bitbake at some point:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.bitbake.devel/1089/focus=1115

Ah yes, stuff agreed at OEDEM, I see. I also remember that nearly
everything that was 'agreed' there got dis-agreed on the mailinglist here.
And I also remember that I said that to be consistent sane-srcrevs
should cease to exist as well :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFLXVP7MkyGM64RGpERAuV7AJ9ReCKJDujV+1VS0IErq+Ne5sUF/ACdGYID
3/0DqfPuC8O5KmvQORdsipw=
=ukSY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----