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 7868113877A for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:49:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D4767E0FF0; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:48:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yh0-f42.google.com (mail-yh0-f42.google.com [209.85.213.42]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C34BFE0FEB for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:48:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yh0-f42.google.com with SMTP id a41so5098708yho.29 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 04:48:35 -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=SdxZijqeAGSlsYqlvrOaJaSuhGta5DHMQNzJCGCzbrA=; b=M7gyvlbbQaJ9QrWMFgt9TIoqgtC5xyjc9c5o81nQUSP87qlHWxdjgZMW7csWIU8VlM p2/MKc01BkZ/C7k2h46HhG+lf5KiiDJd00TSjsuJr/23RVckm6D6xZ+eLidKa/JxBCFh f0TpVimIbZ/iWpkjR5lOThineEoKGu0lypIqfiX4rUdqWLPpVK5sp/Cm2GYhTyxzjF8W Pk3lPAQeTiONubcKQes70d1YyuHZ74jXFFGXnnyjAjxm5tXIt0xSxZ1qEB3ahcmpTSaM MEgvH7gHvETE09y2OJdqk4nDVz0FOKdcsWAVcN6YoqSp6F4FQNhHuIBPufxahCtxvWLe isdg== X-Received: by 10.236.32.227 with SMTP id o63mr51436842yha.31.1406029715719; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 04:48:35 -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 q5sm314088yhk.8.2014.07.22.04.48.34 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Jul 2014 04:48:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53CE4F92.80807@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 06:48:34 -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> <53CE44F4.3050501@gmail.com> <53CE4B97.9000406@iinet.net.au> In-Reply-To: <53CE4B97.9000406@iinet.net.au> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 15adcbca-3a28-46a5-bda4-a6794fd79bda X-Archives-Hash: be26f13ed671801c5e70c2fd19eefce8 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 :-) :-)