binutils-2.20.1: fix checksums
PATCH 1/1 binutils-2.20.1: fix checksums
--- recipes/binutils/binutils_2.20.1.bb | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
recipes/binutils/binutils_2.20.1.bb +2 -2
@@ -24,8 +24,8 @@ SRC_URI_append_nios2 =" \ file://binutils-nios2.patch \ " -SRC_URI[tarball.sha256sum] = "228b84722d87e88e7fdd36869e590e649ab523a0800a7d53df906498afe6f6f8" -SRC_URI[tarball.md5sum] = "9cdfb9d6ec0578c166d3beae5e15c4e5" +SRC_URI[tarball.sha256sum] = "71d37c96451333c5c0b84b170169fdcb138bbb27397dc06281905d9717c8ed64" +SRC_URI[tarball.md5sum] = "2b9dc8f2b7dbd5ec5992c6e29de0b764" # powerpc patches SRC_URI += "\
Signature · 1 line
1.7.3.4
Dear Ilya,
Am Mittwoch, den 07.09.2011, 23:38 +0100 schrieb Ilya Dmitrichenko:
Quoted 5 lines
Signed-off-by Ilya Dmitrichenko <[email protected]>--- recipes/binutils/binutils_2.20.1.bb | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
[…]
thank you for your patch. Unfortunately we cannot apply it as is. Please read [1] for the reason.
Thanks,
Paul
[1] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/2011-September/034885.html
Quoted 5 lines · Paul Menzel
thank you for your patch. Unfortunately we cannot apply it as is. Please read [1] for the reason.
[1] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/2011-September/034885.html
The only work around that I see is to write a new bb recipe file for 2.20.1a, and update the old
recipe with SRC_URI to point to a mirror which holds that old tarball. Please advise on how
you usually would handle these issues, cause the above solution is not reliable either.
I agree that it's a bit tricky, though if bitbake been told that 1.2.3 and 1.2.3a are equivalents,
it would be quite nice :) Of course different projects have their own versioning schemes, and
often it implies kaos, however I presume that gnu toolchain team has a very clear pattern
and that could be relied upon and implemented in the .inc files. Something like VERSION_SUFFIX_IGNORE=$regex ...
Cheers,
Signature · 1 line
Ilya
Am Donnerstag, den 08.09.2011, 23:33 +0100 schrieb Ilya Dmitrichenko:
Quoted 11 lines · Paul Menzel
Quoted 4 lines
thank you for your patch. Unfortunately we cannot apply it as is. Please read [1] for the reason.
[1] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/2011-September/034885.html
The only work around that I see is to write a new bb recipe file for 2.20.1a, and update the old recipe with
SRC_URIto point to a mirror which holds that old tarball.
Please advise on how you usually would handle these issues, cause the above solution is not reliable either.
Please move/rename the recipe to 2.20.1a as done in the referenced link and kind of in [1].
Quoted 7 lines
I agree that it's a bit tricky, though if bitbake been told that 1.2.3 and 1.2.3a are equivalents, it would be quite nice :) Of course different projects have their own versioning schemes, and often it implies kaos, however I presume that gnu toolchain team has a very clear pattern and that could be relied upon and implemented in the .inc files.
Something like VERSION_SUFFIX_IGNORE=$regex ...
Patches are welcome I guess. But you should check with the BitBake guys.
Thanks,
Paul