[gentoo-java] Solving bug 67266 ( java-sdk-docs-1.5.0 (jdk-1_5_0-doc.zip) has wrong md5-sum )

[gentoo-java] Solving bug 67266 ( java-sdk-docs-1.5.0 (jdk-1_5_0-doc.zip) has wrong md5-sum )

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 449 bytes --]

So the upstream file has changed and now the md5sum verification failes.
Attached is a patch that I came up with. I personally have bookmarked
the sdk docs in my browser so that is why I did not want to change the
installation directory, I also did not want to change the md5sum of the
existing version. I will commit this tomorrow unless someone has a
better idea on how to fix this:

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67266

Regards,
Petteri

[-- Attachment #1.2: sdk-docs.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1133 bytes --]

--- java-sdk-docs-1.5.0.ebuild	2005-12-08 22:44:44.000000000 +0200
+++ java-sdk-docs-1.5.0-r1.ebuild	2005-12-08 23:23:09.000000000 +0200
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
 # $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/dev-java/java-sdk-docs/java-sdk-docs-1.5.0.ebuild,v 1.7 2004/10/02 17:32:53 axxo Exp $
 
-SRC_URI="jdk-1_5_0-doc.zip"
+SRC_URI="jdk-1_5_0-doc-r1.zip"
 DESCRIPTION="Javadoc for Java SDK version 1.5.0 Beta 2"
 HOMEPAGE="http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/"
 LICENSE="sun-j2sl"
@@ -17,16 +17,19 @@
 S="${WORKDIR}/docs"
 
 pkg_nofetch() {
-	einfo "Please download ${SRC_URI} from "
+	einfo "Please download jdk-1_5_0-doc.zip from "
 	einfo "${DOWNLOAD_URL}"
-	einfo "and move it to ${DISTDIR}"
+	einfo "and place it in ${DISTDIR} named as"
+	einfo "${SRC_URI}. Notice the r1. This is caused by a change in the"
+	einfo "upstream file Sun provides."
 }
 
 src_install(){
-	dohtml index.html
+	insinto /usr/share/doc/${P}/html
+	doins index.html
 
 	local dirs="api guide images relnotes tooldocs"
 	for i in $dirs ; do
-		cp -r $i ${D}/usr/share/doc/${P}/html
+		doins -r $i
 	done
 }

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-java] Solving bug 67266 ( java-sdk-docs-1.5.0 (jdk-1_5_0-doc.zip) has wrong md5-sum )

[Greg Tassone]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 886 bytes --]

On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 23:27 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> So the upstream file has changed and now the md5sum verification failes.
> Attached is a patch that I came up with. I personally have bookmarked
> the sdk docs in my browser so that is why I did not want to change the
> installation directory, I also did not want to change the md5sum of the
> existing version. I will commit this tomorrow unless someone has a
> better idea on how to fix this:
> 
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67266


Ouch.  It's too bad that they (Sun) don't have a more sane version
scheme for the docs.  IMO It's bad form for them to modify published,
versioned content but not increment it somehow.

Oh well.  Given that you don't have many options, and that these files
already require manual manipulation via the fetch restriction, I'd say
your fix makes good sense.

Greg

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-java] Solving bug 67266 ( java-sdk-docs-1.5.0 (jdk-1_5_0-doc.zip) has wrong md5-sum )

[Karl Trygve Kalleberg]

Petteri Räty wrote:
> So the upstream file has changed and now the md5sum verification failes.
> Attached is a patch that I came up with. I personally have bookmarked
> the sdk docs in my browser so that is why I did not want to change the
> installation directory, I also did not want to change the md5sum of the
> existing version. I will commit this tomorrow unless someone has a
> better idea on how to fix this:
> 
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67266

This is probably the best choice so far. A few ideas:

1) Instead or r1, use ${PR}, so that updates to this ebuild don't make
    a mess.

2) Perhaps even explain the situation to the user: If they download the
    file, name it ${SRC_URI} and still see md5sum failures, it will mean
    that they have stumbled across a different revision. This should
    be reported, or they should try another -rX of the jdk docs.

    Hurrah for inane release policies.


Cheers,

-- Karl T
-- 
gentoo-java@gentoo.org mailing list