Re: [bitbake-devel] [PATCH] bitbake-setup: pass install-buildtools options from config and CLI

On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 at 12:30, Jaipaul Cheernam
<[email protected]> wrote:
>      Two options for install-buildtools here:
>
>      (a) Update install-buildtools to handle file:// URLs natively — uses the file in-place, avoids a redundant copy of a potentially large (~500MB)
>   installer to a temp directory.
>
>      (b) Leave install-buildtools unchanged — wget already supports file:// and will copy the file to temp. t requires zero changes to
>   install-buildtools, making this a bitbake-only patch.
>
>      I'm fine with either. What's your preference?

I like option (a). install-buildtools is in oe-core, and can be
changed if there's a use case. It can be modified to take a new option
--local-file that simply takes a file path and doesn't perform
checksum verification at all.

>   Config format:
>
>   "install-buildtools": {
>       "url": "https://downloads.yoctoproject.org/releases/yocto/yocto-5.3.2/buildtools",
>       "filename": "x86_64-buildtools-extended-nativesdk-standalone-5.3.2.sh",
>       "sha256sum": "a1b2c3d4..."
>   }

url and filename could be combined into one complete url field, no
need to split them, as they're not anymore given to install-buildtools
script.

>   If sha256sum is omitted — bb.fetch downloads with a warning (user's choice).

I'd say absence of sha256sum should be a hard error, with a hint about
how to add the sum to the file.

>   If sha256sum doesn't match — bb.fetch raises FetchError before install-buildtools is ever called.
>
>   Standalone usage of install-buildtools remains unchanged.
>
>   Does this match what you had in mind?

Yes, more or less :-)

Alex