Bug 13947

Summary:	buildtools checksum files are named different on non-release and release builds
Product:	[Infrastructure] Release Process	Reporter:	Ross Burton <ross.burton>
Component:	Release Process	Assignee:	Vineela <vineela.tummalapalli>
Status:	RESOLVED FIXED	QA Contact:
Severity:	normal
Priority:	High	CC:	akuster808, randy.macleod, richard.purdie, tim.orling
Version:	unspecified
Target Milestone:	3.2 M2
Hardware:	x86
OS:	Multiple
Whiteboard:
OS type for building Yocto:	---	Type of Regression:	---
Verified:		Documentation change:	No (bug/feature does not impact docs)

Description Ross Burton 2020-06-16 07:22:34 UTC

I was trying to work on the buildtools installer (oe-core/scripts/install-buildtools) which can verify checksums but I noticed that the checksum files are different on the public and internal download sites.

The 3.1 release has .sha256 files:

http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/releases/yocto/yocto-3.1/buildtools/

Whereas the non-release autobuilder uses .sha256sum files:

https://autobuilder.yocto.io/pub/non-release/20200615-9/buildtools/

This makes writing an installer that can fetch from both sites tricky.

Comment 1 Vineela 2020-06-16 12:16:07 UTC

@Ross
In Release scripts i had the checksum file as .sha256. 
I'm changing the release scripts so that it generates files with .sha256sum extension for releases going forward.
Is the expectation to change the .sha256 extension to .sha256sum for 3.1 release as well in http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/releases/yocto/yocto-3.1/?

Comment 2 Ross Burton 2020-06-17 03:09:30 UTC

The complication is that we do have tooling that currently expects .sha256 files.  Don't alter existing releases.

Comment 3 Vineela 2020-06-22 10:42:37 UTC

When I submitted the patch for this bug to change the file extension from .sha256sum to .sha256, below is the comment I got

" 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."

Also, Richard mentioned below.
" Lets switch to use sha256sum but please leave the single sha256 we reference in buildtools alonsgide the new sha256sum. We can update it to use sha256sum going forward."
This tells that going forward the buildtools script will be using sha256sum.
@Ross can you please confirm the same.
If yes, there needs no change in the AB for file extension and I can go ahead and close the bug " id=13947".
@Ross please confirm.

Comment 4 Vineela 2020-06-25 08:44:47 UTC

Changed all the file extensions in release builds from sha256 to sha256sum and retained few buildtools checksums as .sha256.

Comment 5 akuster 2020-06-27 11:18:52 UTC

does this patch address this issue?

https://patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/173988/

Comment 6 Richard Purdie 2020-06-28 00:44:23 UTC

Yes, the above commit was the final piece of the work needed, its now resolved, thanks Vineela.