Re: [gentoo-user] adobe flash

[Bill Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au>]

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