From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FDD013877A for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:03:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AEC0CE0FC6; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:03:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yk0-f172.google.com (mail-yk0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB128E0F06 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:03:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yk0-f172.google.com with SMTP id 10so4771168ykt.3 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 04:03:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0xoQnGEXpJX3fOyks4O9YwnOTrFHel0/0ILzqCWrSbI=; b=uhaJzCn1LO9QInjVe+pUQqfvSJDZX1ELaiSNUZb1lqvInJZS1NaIzL7OqB3zR73HRg AGVo640GXbNQEThrsBtKjYsGc6RLEoFU5ozxjU69UxzGv9FfhmgHTN8wvi6RjXdzYYpx 45j/57U81Y+u9QmzAQsVbPFFJ6on/kcHeeVMJbKKfiyWlimgTXQeqPATXNRnssJlPn4k BZSeoq2gZuJLg2+/9VizO0YKkp1kSXG6WlqNWXp6XmI598U/wMOR4/z58eBOrHj+y4JK MAKH6uJo0VV9OJ62IU7IO3vBaF/gIQMKGj3KSZgjrs/aWPReAZRfqilR4Wnzmm/lJ5K6 fAgQ== X-Received: by 10.236.43.112 with SMTP id k76mr3477181yhb.151.1406026997633; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 04:03:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.5] (adsl-65-0-122-210.jan.bellsouth.net. [65.0.122.210]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id c25sm97384yhc.24.2014.07.22.04.03.16 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Jul 2014 04:03:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53CE44F4.3050501@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 06:03:16 -0500 From: Dale User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/29.0 SeaMonkey/2.26.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] adobe flash References: <53CE2967.1010105@iinet.net.au> <1419565.3RCxVFKX0b@andromeda> In-Reply-To: <1419565.3RCxVFKX0b@andromeda> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 9f688b65-2865-4251-9da8-8b5e8df92667 X-Archives-Hash: a60dba3069ca631c2757596f16963598 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 :-) :-)