boost: Fix SRC_URI checksums
PATCH 1/1 boost: Fix SRC_URI checksums
--- meta/recipes-support/boost/boost-1.62.0.inc | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
meta/recipes-support/boost/boost-1.62.0.inc +2 -2
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ BOOST_P = "boost_${BOOST_VER}" SRC_URI = "${SOURCEFORGE_MIRROR}/boost/${BOOST_P}.tar.bz2" -SRC_URI[md5sum] = "7ef085456c48c49a7fe8237f07e5f674" -SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "bce80293052e2d6230f1bec9b7524b33412e4fb26e9723460a0f362ac15b7acb" +SRC_URI[md5sum] = "21b799e5d35ba2beef75b225deaf199a" +SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "a715dc2adff2d451719352b1e863d78cbb100a03f7ed76097c89b9016c59091e" S = "${WORKDIR}/${BOOST_P}"
Signature · 1 line
2.10.1
Quoted 1 line · Khem Raj
Signed-off-by Khem Raj <[email protected]>
Why, what happened?
Cheers,
Richard
Quoted 24 lines
---
meta/recipes-support/boost/boost-1.62.0.inc | 4 ++--1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)meta/recipes-support/boost/boost-1.62.0.inc +0
-0@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ BOOST_P = "boost_${BOOST_VER}"
SRC_URI = "${SOURCEFORGE_MIRROR}/boost/${BOOST_P}.tar.bz2"meta/recipes-support/boost/boost-1.62.0.inc +0
-2-SRC_URI[md5sum] = "7ef085456c48c49a7fe8237f07e5f674" -SRC_URI[sha256sum] ="
bce80293052e2d6230f1bec9b7524b33412e4fb26e9723460a0f362ac15b7acb"meta/recipes-support/boost/boost-1.62.0.inc +2
-0+SRC_URI[md5sum] = "21b799e5d35ba2beef75b225deaf199a" +SRC_URI[sha256sum] ="
a715dc2adff2d451719352b1e863d78cbb100a03f7ed76097c89b9016c59091e"
S = "${WORKDIR}/${BOOST_P}"
--
2.10.1
Quoted 4 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 1 line · Khem Raj
Signed-off-by Khem Raj <[email protected]>Why, what happened?
I haven't checked in detail but after the recent master commits my builds started to fail with checksum errors.
since it was happening on two different machines I though it might have been over sight.
Quoted 30 lines
Cheers,
Richard
Quoted 24 lines
--- meta/recipes-support/boost/boost-1.62.0.inc | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)meta/recipes-support/boost/boost-1.62.0.inc +0
-2@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ BOOST_P = "boost_${BOOST_VER}" SRC_URI = "${SOURCEFORGE_MIRROR}/boost/${BOOST_P}.tar.bz2" -SRC_URI[md5sum] = "7ef085456c48c49a7fe8237f07e5f674" -SRC_URI[sha256sum] ="
bce80293052e2d6230f1bec9b7524b33412e4fb26e9723460a0f362ac15b7acb"meta/recipes-support/boost/boost-1.62.0.inc +2
-0+SRC_URI[md5sum] = "21b799e5d35ba2beef75b225deaf199a" +SRC_URI[sha256sum] ="
a715dc2adff2d451719352b1e863d78cbb100a03f7ed76097c89b9016c59091e"S = "${WORKDIR}/${BOOST_P}"
--
2.10.1
Quoted 11 lines · On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 10:39:34 Khem Raj wrote:
Quoted 4 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 1 line · Khem Raj
Signed-off-by Khem Raj <[email protected]>Why, what happened?
I haven't checked in detail but after the recent master commits my builds started to fail with checksum errors.
since it was happening on two different machines I though it might have been over sight.
We need to be extremely cautious changing the SRC_URI checksums when there's a mismatch, otherwise we might as well not have them at all. The SRC_URI checksums definitely were changed when the last update was done, so this doesn't appear to be a case where they accidentally weren't updated.
Alex, any idea what's happened here? Do you have the originals from when you did the upgrade?
Cheers,
Paul
Signature · 2 lines
Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre
Quoted 13 lines · On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:27:15 Paul Eggleton wrote:
Quoted 11 lines · On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 10:39:34 Khem Raj wrote:
Quoted 4 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 1 line · Khem Raj
Signed-off-by Khem Raj <[email protected]>Why, what happened?
I haven't checked in detail but after the recent master commits my builds started to fail with checksum errors.
since it was happening on two different machines I though it might have been over sight.
Quoted 7 lines
We need to be extremely cautious changing the
SRC_URIchecksums when there's a mismatch, otherwise we might as well not have them at all. TheSRC_URIchecksums definitely were changed when the last update was done, so this doesn't appear to be a case where they accidentally weren't updated.Alex, any idea what's happened here? Do you have the originals from when you did the upgrade?
Hmm, it seems we aren't the only ones to have hit this:
http://osdir.com/ml/blfs-dev/2016-10/msg00013.html
That said, I still don't think we should blindly trust the latest archives until we're sure of what the differences are.
Cheers,
Paul
Signature · 2 lines
Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre
Quoted 9 lines · Paul Eggleton
Quoted 2 lines
Alex, any idea what's happened here? Do you have the originals from when you did the upgrade?
Hmm, it seems we aren't the only ones to have hit this:
http://osdir.com/ml/blfs-dev/2016-10/msg00013.html
That said, I still don't think we should blindly trust the latest archives until we're sure of what the differences are.
Sourceforge is doing too-clever redirecting that fails miserably here:
Proxy request sent, awaiting response... 301 Moved Permanently
Location: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/boost/boost/snapshots/master/boost_1_62_0.tar.bz2 [following]
So we've been fetching a moving master snapshot all along. Patch is coming shortly.
Alex
Quoted 14 lines · Alexander Kanavin
Quoted 9 lines · Paul Eggleton
Quoted 2 lines
Alex, any idea what's happened here? Do you have the originals from when you did the upgrade?
Hmm, it seems we aren't the only ones to have hit this:
http://osdir.com/ml/blfs-dev/2016-10/msg00013.html
That said, I still don't think we should blindly trust the latest archives until we're sure of what the differences are.
Quoted 6 lines
Sourceforge is doing too-clever redirecting that fails miserably here:
Proxy request sent, awaiting response... 301 Moved Permanently
Location: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/boost/boost/snapshots/master/boost_1_62_0.tar.bz2 [following]So we've been fetching a moving master snapshot all along. Patch is coming shortly.
we should specify boost/boost/1.62.0/boost_1_62_0.tar.bz2 instead of boost/boost/boost_1_62_0.tar.bz2
Quoted 3 lines
Alex
Quoted 8 lines · Khem Raj
Quoted 6 lines
Sourceforge is doing too-clever redirecting that fails miserably here:
Proxy request sent, awaiting response... 301 Moved Permanently
Location: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/boost/boost/snapshots/master/boost_1_62_0.tar.bz2 [following]So we've been fetching a moving master snapshot all along. Patch is coming shortly.
we should specify boost/boost/1.62.0/boost_1_62_0.tar.bz2 instead of boost/boost/boost_1_62_0.tar.bz2
Incorrect. That will still download a master snapshot tarball. Only if the 'project/' is prefixed, SF will give you the release tarball.
Alex
Quoted 7 lines · Alexander Kanavin
Quoted 2 lines · Khem Raj
Quoted 2 lines
Sourceforge is doing too-clever redirecting that fails miserably here:
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Proxy request sent, awaiting response... 301 Moved Permanently
Location: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/boost/boost/snapshots/master/boost_1_62_0.tar.bz2 [following]So we've been fetching a moving master snapshot all along. Patch is coming shortly.
we should specify boost/boost/1.62.0/boost_1_62_0.tar.bz2 instead of boost/boost/boost_1_62_0.tar.bz2
Incorrect. That will still download a master snapshot tarball. Only if the 'project/' is prefixed, SF will give you the release tarball.
if we need projects/ then it should be encoded into SOURCEFORGE_MIRROR variable in bitbake.conf. Since that required for every sf.net project.
Quoted 4 lines
Alex
Quoted 6 lines · Khem Raj
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
we should specify boost/boost/1.62.0/boost_1_62_0.tar.bz2 instead of boost/boost/boost_1_62_0.tar.bz2
Incorrect. That will still download a master snapshot tarball. Only if the 'project/' is prefixed, SF will give you the release tarball.
if we need projects/ then it should be encoded into
SOURCEFORGE_MIRRORvariable in bitbake.conf. Since that required for every sf.net project.
Would you then also fix the remaining recipe-specific part of the URI in all those recipes? I don't have the bandwidth for that right now, and it's a problem that is unlikely to happen in other recipes.
Alex
Quoted 14 lines · Alexander Kanavin
Quoted 6 lines · Khem Raj
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
we should specify boost/boost/1.62.0/boost_1_62_0.tar.bz2 instead of boost/boost/boost_1_62_0.tar.bz2
Incorrect. That will still download a master snapshot tarball. Only if the 'project/' is prefixed, SF will give you the release tarball.
if we need projects/ then it should be encoded into
SOURCEFORGE_MIRRORvariable in bitbake.conf. Since that required for every sf.net project.Would you then also fix the remaining recipe-specific part of the URI in all those recipes? I don't have the bandwidth for that right now, and it's a problem that is unlikely to happen in other recipes.
I wonder if same problem would not happen for other sf.net packages. probably we never run into it probably because it gets backed up on yp download mirror and then used. I am not expecting you to fix it, don't worry.
Quoted 10 lines · On Tue, 01 Nov 2016 09:45:48 Khem Raj wrote:
Quoted 10 lines
On Nov 1, 2016, at 9:33 AM, Alexander Kanavin
<[email protected]> wrote:>Quoted 6 lines · Khem Raj
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines
we should specify boost/boost/1.62.0/boost_1_62_0.tar.bz2 instead of boost/boost/boost_1_62_0.tar.bz2>>>
Incorrect. That will still download a master snapshot tarball. Only if the 'project/' is prefixed, SF will give you the release tarball.>>
if we need projects/ then it should be encoded into
SOURCEFORGE_MIRRORvariable in bitbake.conf. Since that required for every sf.net project.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Would you then also fix the remaining recipe-specific part of the URI in all those recipes? I don't have the bandwidth for that right now, and it's a problem that is unlikely to happen in other recipes.
I wonder if same problem would not happen for other sf.net packages. probably we never run into it probably because it gets backed up on yp download mirror and then used. I am not expecting you to fix it, don't worry.
I think it's less likely to happen elsewhere because most projects don't release snapshot tarballs with the exact same name as the latest stable release ones. Someone really ought to explain to the boost folks why that is a bad idea.
Cheers,
Paul
Signature · 2 lines
Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre