On Wed, 2020-06-17 at 20:12 +0000, Vineela wrote:
> From: Vineela Tummalapalli <vineela.tummalapa...@intel.com>
>
>
> ---
> scripts/publish-artefacts | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/publish-artefacts b/scripts/publish-artefacts
> index 6ed922a..3ef7206 100755
> --- a/scripts/publish-artefacts
> +++ b/scripts/publish-artefacts
> @@ -7,10 +7,10 @@ sha256sums(){
> dest=$1
> for x in `find -L $dest -maxdepth 5 -type f`; do
> for w in $x;do
> - if [ ${w##*.} != sha256sum ]; then
> + if [ ${w##*.} != sha256 ]; then
> shasum=`sha256sum $w | awk '{print $1}'`
> filename=${w##*/}
> - echo $shasum $filename >> $w.sha256sum
> + echo $shasum $filename > $w.sha256
> fi
> done
> done
This is turning into a bit of a mess. The preferred naming is
"X.sha256sum" since it says what they are and is the most clear. In 3.1
and mostly in 3.1.1 they were called "X.sha256".
We need to decide if we just switch to the naming most of us don't
like, or we switch to the one which we'd prefer. I'm leaning to
switching as there isn't much that depends on these (yet) apart from
the buildtools script which we'd need to patch with the new version url
anyway.
Any other strong opinions? There was a recent comment we should
probably have a manifest file containing the checksums, I'm wondering
if that should replace the individual checksum files anyway?
Cheers,
Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#49675): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/49675
Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/74945598/21656
Group Owner: yocto+ow...@lists.yoctoproject.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
