On 03/20/2012 03:00 AM, Anders Darander wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:49, Xiaofeng Yan<xiaofeng....@windriver.com> wrote:
On 2012年03月20日 17:40, Xiaofeng Yan wrote:
On 2012年03月20日 16:07, Koen Kooi wrote:
Op 20 mrt. 2012, om 06:50 heeft Xiaofeng Yan het volgende geschreven:
On 2012年03月20日 05:04, Saul Wold wrote:
On 03/15/2012 11:23 PM, Xiaofeng Yan wrote:
From: Xiaofeng Yan<xiaofeng....@windriver.com>
Why do you rebuild the tarball here are rename it instead of just
copying the original tarball?
because many packages come from non-tarball and they could be git
sources , So I archive these sources after do_unpack.
But if you have the original tarball and reuse it, you'll get the warm
fuzzy feeling of matching checksums.
So How about renaming archive-original-source to
archive-prepatched-source?
Hi Saul,
Or I can add a new functions to get tarball from downloads if have tarball
and archive source codes directory if have directory without tarball.
Do you think it is necessary for us to add this function?
I'd say that this is a change that should be made. If nothing else,
just to get the assurance that the archived tarball's are the same as
the ones that was used to build the system. (This is beneficial both
when it comes to using the archived tarballs for rebuilding the
system, as well as for ensuring licence compliance).
I agree here, as Koen also pointed out, it will have matching checksums.
As to the name of the tarball, again best to keep it named the same as
the original tarball.
Sau!
/Anders
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
