[oe] [PATCH 2/2] conf/checksum.ini: at91 linux + u-boot-2009.11

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2010/3/15 Ulf Samuelsson <ulf.samuelsson at atmel.com>:
> Add checksums for:
> 2.6.30-exp.2.patch.bz2
> u-boot-2009.11.tar.bz2
>
> Signed-off-by: Ulf Samuelsson <ulf.samuelsson at atmel.com>
> ---
>  conf/checksums.ini |    8 ++++++++
>  1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/conf/checksums.ini b/conf/checksums.ini
> index 70346bf..ba3b697 100644
> --- a/conf/checksums.ini
> +++ b/conf/checksums.ini
> @@ -74,6 +74,10 @@ sha256=7a960180e7873b1bdb522e76b0423b5c2c1b8efe1d30d7ca80c41eb97d822b2d
>  md5=f13ab353b11329ce3d605b6f40e77fa6
>  sha256=41991e8aa2e5fe8e5dfd47b1e5c446fa03c3ee96a5eae54fd6ec15d1d9afef30
>
> +[ftp://www.at91.com/pub/buildroot/2.6.30-exp.2.patch.bz2]
> +md5=770c7a2bfb925111a8c0e0d4c8c4764e
> +sha256=58894965b253eae0c4caacedc3463cf186c18431ca0d71b767a3b36aa40ec388
> +
>  [http://maxim.org.za/AT91RM9200/2.6/2.6.31-at91.patch.gz]
>  md5=bf420f0340e30b0a2c42b2b36d0b2577
>  sha256=738b88daa31e1a033646900813a5f1ce40ba21e2836500fd848a984565f27584
> @@ -27022,6 +27026,10 @@ sha256=b0037cf21b67779ef5a0c585b32e46bde3b78df889484c78bb4318c9b448f560
>  md5=cd4788ea1c6ac4f9b100b888a1063a6b
>  sha256=858fd04efd5b98e99fd1a074998b1a8ac5fbd07b176de1d20d8eb148492d949d
>
> +[ftp://ftp.denx.de/pub/u-boot/u-boot-2009.11.tar.bz2]
> +md5=d94700614225f53c853dfe714eb5fa47
> +sha256=066615314fc90a314823ac975ca2a525a51fdad41802f4088a3a21ce073e8de6
> +
>  [http://linux.omap.com/pub/bootloader/2430sdp/source/u-boot-SEP1106.tar.gz]
>  md5=49c07dec9e1be69fd01d46f47ec03731
>  sha256=a090786113b02647413ebc15888af269f2e6d50f73cbb94b0619cc1702911dae
> --
> 1.6.0.2


Isn't nowadays the preferred policy to have the checksums in the recipe?
If so, shouldn't we stop adding checksums to the ini file?

Frans