[Build-common-hackers] a WAF class for CDBS
remi.thebault at gmail.com
Tue Dec 28 19:09:26 UTC 2010
> Ah, you are fast to adopt that new testsanity! :-)
Well by force : I had to merge it to changes I already done :-) !
This standardization idea is good anyway.
> I think maybe it is too strong to unconditionally check. We should
> permit our users to take off the "safety belt".
OK. Will introduce a var DEB_WAF_SKIP_CHECKSUM.
> Also, I think if we simply do checksum, it is of little help. What
> indirectly we want to checksum is the _contents_ of that blob. So
> really if we fail a build as "not properly checked for sanity" then we
> should more clearly indicate what needs sanity checking - which isn't
> looking at a hash, but instead is looking at some code and then
> creating/storing a corresponding hash.
I don't get this. Do you expect a cdbs script to unpack the waf file (I
don't know the format, but it is probably not so hard)
and to checksum each file inside ?
> I suggest to create an independent target - not enabled by default until
> fully implemented - which does checksum and unpack blob if failing.
> Then when good, this can be included in testsanity - conditional to some
> variable which the user can then set if they find it sane to trust
> upstream without this checksum.
> How does that sound?
Sounds good !
> - Jonas
> Build-common-hackers mailing list
> Build-common-hackers at lists.alioth.debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Build-common-hackers