[gentoo-user] adobe flash

[gentoo-user] adobe flash

[Bill Kenworthy]

I have a couple of systems with flash that are always a pain to update
because the checksums fail so you have to manually force a manifest
rebuild first.  As I have to update them anyway, is there a ways to
override the portage checksums and say install anyway?  Because this
package always fails anyway, I cant see any security gain by having a
manual update every-time anyway.

BillK

Re: [gentoo-user] adobe flash

[J. Roeleveld]

On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 05:05:43 PM Bill Kenworthy wrote:
> I have a couple of systems with flash that are always a pain to update
> because the checksums fail so you have to manually force a manifest
> rebuild first.  As I have to update them anyway, is there a ways to
> override the portage checksums and say install anyway?  Because this
> package always fails anyway, I cant see any security gain by having a
> manual update every-time anyway.

I would be more interested in finding out why it fails?
I use adobe flash myself and never experience a checksum issue with it.

--
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] adobe flash

[Dale]

J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 05:05:43 PM Bill Kenworthy wrote:
>> I have a couple of systems with flash that are always a pain to update
>> because the checksums fail so you have to manually force a manifest
>> rebuild first.  As I have to update them anyway, is there a ways to
>> override the portage checksums and say install anyway?  Because this
>> package always fails anyway, I cant see any security gain by having a
>> manual update every-time anyway.
> I would be more interested in finding out why it fails?
> I use adobe flash myself and never experience a checksum issue with it.
>
> --
> Joost
>
> .
>

Same here.  I have it installed here and don't recall ever having a
digest issue.  It could be that something is off somewhere.  If so, I'd
rethink bypassing the checks. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] adobe flash

[Bill Kenworthy]

On 22/07/14 19:03, Dale wrote:
> J. Roeleveld wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 05:05:43 PM Bill Kenworthy wrote:
>>> I have a couple of systems with flash that are always a pain to update
>>> because the checksums fail so you have to manually force a manifest
>>> rebuild first.  As I have to update them anyway, is there a ways to
>>> override the portage checksums and say install anyway?  Because this
>>> package always fails anyway, I cant see any security gain by having a
>>> manual update every-time anyway.
>> I would be more interested in finding out why it fails?
>> I use adobe flash myself and never experience a checksum issue with it.
>>
>> --
>> Joost
>>
>> .
>>
> 
> Same here.  I have it installed here and don't recall ever having a
> digest issue.  It could be that something is off somewhere.  If so, I'd
> rethink bypassing the checks. 
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-) 
> 

Hmm, that's interesting.

Caused me to look closer ... I am pulling from http-replicator which
doesnt update the package if it cant see a name change (and adobe don't
change the name on the package - just the directory its pulled from) so
of course it fails checksum.

Thanks for the hints to track this down.

BillK

Re: [gentoo-user] adobe flash

[J. Roeleveld]

On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 07:31:35 PM Bill Kenworthy wrote:
> On 22/07/14 19:03, Dale wrote:
> > J. Roeleveld wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 05:05:43 PM Bill Kenworthy wrote:
> >>> I have a couple of systems with flash that are always a pain to update
> >>> because the checksums fail so you have to manually force a manifest
> >>> rebuild first.  As I have to update them anyway, is there a ways to
> >>> override the portage checksums and say install anyway?  Because this
> >>> package always fails anyway, I cant see any security gain by having a
> >>> manual update every-time anyway.
> >> 
> >> I would be more interested in finding out why it fails?
> >> I use adobe flash myself and never experience a checksum issue with it.
> >> 
> >> --
> >> Joost
> >> 
> >> .
> > 
> > Same here.  I have it installed here and don't recall ever having a
> > digest issue.  It could be that something is off somewhere.  If so, I'd
> > rethink bypassing the checks.
> > 
> > Dale
> > 
> > :-)  :-)
> 
> Hmm, that's interesting.
> 
> Caused me to look closer ... I am pulling from http-replicator which
> doesnt update the package if it cant see a name change (and adobe don't
> change the name on the package - just the directory its pulled from) so
> of course it fails checksum.
> 
> Thanks for the hints to track this down.

Sounds like you might have been running a very old version without realising?

I personally would consider it a bug in http-replicator that it doesn't take 
the actual location or filedate into account.

--
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] adobe flash

[Dale]

Bill Kenworthy wrote:
> On 22/07/14 19:03, Dale wrote:
>> J. Roeleveld wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 05:05:43 PM Bill Kenworthy wrote:
>>>> I have a couple of systems with flash that are always a pain to update
>>>> because the checksums fail so you have to manually force a manifest
>>>> rebuild first.  As I have to update them anyway, is there a ways to
>>>> override the portage checksums and say install anyway?  Because this
>>>> package always fails anyway, I cant see any security gain by having a
>>>> manual update every-time anyway.
>>> I would be more interested in finding out why it fails?
>>> I use adobe flash myself and never experience a checksum issue with it.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Joost
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>> Same here.  I have it installed here and don't recall ever having a
>> digest issue.  It could be that something is off somewhere.  If so, I'd
>> rethink bypassing the checks. 
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-) 
>>
> Hmm, that's interesting.
>
> Caused me to look closer ... I am pulling from http-replicator which
> doesnt update the package if it cant see a name change (and adobe don't
> change the name on the package - just the directory its pulled from) so
> of course it fails checksum.
>
> Thanks for the hints to track this down.
>
> BillK
>

Welcome.  I wonder if http-replicator needs to check more than the
name?   I use it at times when I have more than one rig running and
sounds like maybe it needs a new feature. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] adobe flash

[Bill Kenworthy]

On 22/07/14 19:48, Dale wrote:
> Bill Kenworthy wrote:
>> On 22/07/14 19:03, Dale wrote:
>>> J. Roeleveld wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 05:05:43 PM Bill Kenworthy wrote:
>>>>> I have a couple of systems with flash that are always a pain to update
>>>>> because the checksums fail so you have to manually force a manifest
>>>>> rebuild first.  As I have to update them anyway, is there a ways to
>>>>> override the portage checksums and say install anyway?  Because this
>>>>> package always fails anyway, I cant see any security gain by having a
>>>>> manual update every-time anyway.
>>>> I would be more interested in finding out why it fails?
>>>> I use adobe flash myself and never experience a checksum issue with it.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Joost
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>> Same here.  I have it installed here and don't recall ever having a
>>> digest issue.  It could be that something is off somewhere.  If so, I'd
>>> rethink bypassing the checks. 
>>>
>>> Dale
>>>
>>> :-)  :-) 
>>>
>> Hmm, that's interesting.
>>
>> Caused me to look closer ... I am pulling from http-replicator which
>> doesnt update the package if it cant see a name change (and adobe don't
>> change the name on the package - just the directory its pulled from) so
>> of course it fails checksum.
>>
>> Thanks for the hints to track this down.
>>
>> BillK
>>
> 
> Welcome.  I wonder if http-replicator needs to check more than the
> name?   I use it at times when I have more than one rig running and
> sounds like maybe it needs a new feature. 
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-) 
> 

The saving grace is that I have only seen the behaviour with this one
package so its something easily dealt with - now I know.  Plus flash is
dieing so I might be able to do away with it before much longer -
unfortunately the OSS packages just are not as good.  I've used
http-replicator for distfiles since it came out in ~2004 and its always
just worked.  Oh well ...

BillK

Re: [gentoo-user] adobe flash

[Peter Humphrey]

On Tuesday 22 July 2014 20:41:34 Bill Kenworthy wrote:
> On 22/07/14 19:48, Dale wrote:
> > Bill Kenworthy wrote:
> >> On 22/07/14 19:03, Dale wrote:
> >>> J. Roeleveld wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 05:05:43 PM Bill Kenworthy wrote:
> >>>>> I have a couple of systems with flash that are always a pain to update
> >>>>> because the checksums fail so you have to manually force a manifest
> >>>>> rebuild first.  As I have to update them anyway, is there a ways to
> >>>>> override the portage checksums and say install anyway?  Because this
> >>>>> package always fails anyway, I cant see any security gain by having a
> >>>>> manual update every-time anyway.
> >>>> 
> >>>> I would be more interested in finding out why it fails?
> >>>> I use adobe flash myself and never experience a checksum issue with it.
> >>>> 
> >>>> --
> >>>> Joost
> >>>> 
> >>> Same here.  I have it installed here and don't recall ever having a
> >>> digest issue.  It could be that something is off somewhere.  If so, I'd
> >>> rethink bypassing the checks.
> >>> 
> >>> Dale
> >>> 
> >> Hmm, that's interesting.
> >> 
> >> Caused me to look closer ... I am pulling from http-replicator which
> >> doesnt update the package if it cant see a name change (and adobe don't
> >> change the name on the package - just the directory its pulled from) so
> >> of course it fails checksum.
> >> 
> >> Thanks for the hints to track this down.
> >> 
> >> BillK
> > 
> > Welcome.  I wonder if http-replicator needs to check more than the
> > name?   I use it at times when I have more than one rig running and
> > sounds like maybe it needs a new feature.
> > 
> > Dale
> > 
> The saving grace is that I have only seen the behaviour with this one
> package so its something easily dealt with - now I know.  Plus flash is
> dieing so I might be able to do away with it before much longer -
> unfortunately the OSS packages just are not as good.  I've used
> http-replicator for distfiles since it came out in ~2004 and its always
> just worked.  Oh well ...
> 
> BillK

I can't use any of the other packages because I use the BBC's radio streaming 
service every day, and none of them work with it (as far as I know).

I have the same problem every time adobe-flash is updated. Last time it 
happened I had a conversation with the maintainer about it [1]. He said the 
problem was caused by Adobe's unconventional version numbering (which sounds 
like the same thing as Bill found), together with any caching proxy in 
between. That's http-replicator in my case too. Solved with wget --no-proxy. 
Or I suppose just deleting the tarball from the proxy's cache should do it.

Forcing a re-manifest is not the thing to do, as that would just lead to 
reinstalling the version you have already.

[1]	https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=509874

-- 
Regards
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] adobe flash

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 284 bytes --]

On Wednesday 23 Jul 2014 10:00:00 Peter Humphrey wrote:

> I can't use any of the other packages because I use the BBC's radio
> streaming service every day, and none of them work with it (as far as I
> know).

Have you looked at the get_iplayer script?

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] adobe flash

[Peter Humphrey]

On Friday 25 July 2014 06:45:35 Mick wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 Jul 2014 10:00:00 Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > I can't use any of the other packages because I use the BBC's radio
> > streaming service every day, and none of them work with it (as far as I
> > know).
> 
> Have you looked at the get_iplayer script?

No, I hadn't heard of it. Looks interesting - thanks Mick.

-- 
Regards
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] adobe flash

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 616 bytes --]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:32:23 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> > > I can't use any of the other packages because I use the BBC's radio
> > > streaming service every day, and none of them work with it (as far
> > > as I know).  
> > 
> > Have you looked at the get_iplayer script?  
> 
> No, I hadn't heard of it. Looks interesting - thanks Mick.

There's also radiotray is you want an unobtrusive way of listening to the
radio without the "web 2.0 enhanced experience".


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Ohnosecond: That minuscule fraction of time in which you realize
            you've just made a big mistake

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] adobe flash

[Peter Humphrey]

On Friday 25 July 2014 09:30:43 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:32:23 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > > I can't use any of the other packages because I use the BBC's radio
> > > > streaming service every day, and none of them work with it (as far
> > > > as I know).
> > > 
> > > Have you looked at the get_iplayer script?
> > 
> > No, I hadn't heard of it. Looks interesting - thanks Mick.
> 
> There's also radiotray is you want an unobtrusive way of listening to the
> radio without the "web 2.0 enhanced experience".

Even better! I'm running it now, having found a working URL from their 
bookmarks file.

Thank you both, gents.

-- 
Regards
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] adobe flash

[Peter Humphrey]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1137 bytes --]

On Friday 25 July 2014 15:26:11 I wrote:
> On Friday 25 July 2014 09:30:43 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:32:23 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > > > I can't use any of the other packages because I use the BBC's radio
> > > > > streaming service every day, and none of them work with it (as far
> > > > > as I know).
> > > > 
> > > > Have you looked at the get_iplayer script?
> > > 
> > > No, I hadn't heard of it. Looks interesting - thanks Mick.
> > 
> > There's also radiotray is you want an unobtrusive way of listening to the
> > radio without the "web 2.0 enhanced experience".
> 
> Even better! I'm running it now, having found a working URL from their
> bookmarks file.
> 
> Thank you both, gents.

Postscript:

There's a comprehensive list of BBC stations at [1]. If anyone's interested 
and wants to use it, you'll have to fix a bug first. The 45 bookmark entries 
in the full BBC regional group are all missing a / character just before the 
line end.

I've attached a fixed version hereto to save you the bother.

[1]	http://jbbr.co.uk/jbbr/2013/02/23/radiotray-bbc-radio-bookmarks-xml/

-- 
Regards
Peter

[-- Attachment #2: bookmarks.xml --]
[-- Type: application/xml, Size: 13739 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] adobe flash

[Peter Humphrey]

On Saturday 26 July 2014 10:46:35 Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Friday 25 July 2014 15:26:11 I wrote:
> > On Friday 25 July 2014 09:30:43 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > > On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:32:23 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > > > > I can't use any of the other packages because I use the BBC's
> > > > > > radio
> > > > > > streaming service every day, and none of them work with it (as far
> > > > > > as I know).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Have you looked at the get_iplayer script?
> > > > 
> > > > No, I hadn't heard of it. Looks interesting - thanks Mick.
> > > 
> > > There's also radiotray is you want an unobtrusive way of listening to
> > > the
> > > radio without the "web 2.0 enhanced experience".
> > 
> > Even better! I'm running it now, having found a working URL from their
> > bookmarks file.
> > 
> > Thank you both, gents.
> 
> Postscript:
> 
> There's a comprehensive list of BBC stations at [1]. If anyone's interested
> and wants to use it, you'll have to fix a bug first. The 45 bookmark entries
> in the full BBC regional group are all missing a / character just before
> the line end.
> 
> I've attached a fixed version hereto to save you the bother.
> 
> [1]	http://jbbr.co.uk/jbbr/2013/02/23/radiotray-bbc-radio-bookmarks-xml/

Postpostscript:

The author's now fixed the original. I haven't checked it though.

-- 
Regards
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] adobe flash

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 826 bytes --]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:05:43 +0800, Bill Kenworthy wrote:

> I have a couple of systems with flash that are always a pain to update
> because the checksums fail so you have to manually force a manifest
> rebuild first.  As I have to update them anyway, is there a ways to
> override the portage checksums and say install anyway?  Because this
> package always fails anyway, I cant see any security gain by having a
> manual update every-time anyway.

It looks like FEATURES="digests" will do what you want, but don't enable
it globally. man make.conf for more info.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

"Most problems go away if you just wait long enough. It might look like
I'm standing motionless but I'm actively waiting for our problems to go
away. I don't know why this works but it does."
Scott Adams, Dilbert comic

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] adobe flash

[Adam Carter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 449 bytes --]

> because the checksums fail so you have to manually force a manifest
> rebuild first.  As I have to update them anyway, is there a ways to
> override the portage checksums and say install anyway?
>

Are you using http-replicator? Its not clever enough to know that the
installer has changed since the filename doesn't change, and keeps serving
up the first one it downloads. If you remove the installer first from
replicator's --dir, it will work.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 707 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] adobe flash

[Adam Carter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 349 bytes --]

>
> Are you using http-replicator? Its not clever enough to know that the
> installer has changed since the filename doesn't change, and keeps serving
> up the first one it downloads. If you remove the installer first from
> replicator's --dir, it will work.
>
> Dammit - I should look more closely at the thread, you figured it out 14
hours ago...

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 656 bytes --]