* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: All sorts of digest verification failures
2015-11-15 9:59 ` Alan Mackenzie
@ 2015-11-15 10:22 ` Matti Nykyri
2015-11-15 10:43 ` Peter Humphrey
2015-11-15 11:01 ` Alan Mackenzie
2015-11-15 10:41 ` Neil Bothwick
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 2 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Matti Nykyri @ 2015-11-15 10:22 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> On Nov 15, 2015, at 11:59, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 06:45:44PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> On 12/11/2015 18:42, Grant Edwards wrote:
>>>> On 2015-11-12, <wabenbau@gmail.com> <wabenbau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> After an emerge --sync that appeared to work with no problems, my
>>>>> "emerge -auvND world" command is reporting that the Changelong files
>>>>> are broken for about 2/3 of the packages it wants to update:
>
> [ .... ]
>
>> The dev are doing some $MAGIC to reinstate ChangeLogs and the first run
>> is expected to take a while (i.e. several hours). I suppose you can
>> expect some breakage till it finishes.
>
>> It's being discussed and tracked on gentoo-dev, you can drop a mail
>> there with specifics to let the devs know what's happening.
>
> Three days later. I'm still getting this error message, but with a nasty
> twist in the tail. emerge -puND @world reports (amongst others) the
> following update:
>
> [ebuild R ] sys-apps/busybox-1.23.1-r1 USE="-pam*"
>
> , and the error message I get on actually trying to start the update is
>
> !!! Digest verification failed:
> !!! /usr/portage/sys-apps/busybox/busybox-9999.ebuild
> !!! Reason: Filesize does not match recorded size
> !!! Got: 8493
> !!! Expected: 8580
>
> . Why is the build system looking at the digest for version 9999 when it
> should be rebuilding version 1.23.1-r1?
Well it's not. It just checks all the manifests and complains about errors. It doesn't affect the building of 1.23.1-r1.
If I were you I'ld download the latest portage snapshot. That should take care of any remaining issues. Is your portage upto date?
--
-M
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: All sorts of digest verification failures
2015-11-15 10:22 ` Matti Nykyri
@ 2015-11-15 10:43 ` Peter Humphrey
2015-11-15 10:56 ` Matti Nykyri
2015-11-15 11:01 ` Alan Mackenzie
1 sibling, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread
From: Peter Humphrey @ 2015-11-15 10:43 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Sunday 15 Nov 2015 12:22:39 Matti Nykyri wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 2015, at 11:59, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
--->8
> > Three days later. I'm still getting this error message, but with a
> > nasty
> > twist in the tail. emerge -puND @world reports (amongst others) the
> >
> > following update:
> > [ebuild R ] sys-apps/busybox-1.23.1-r1 USE="-pam*"
> >
> > , and the error message I get on actually trying to start the update is
> >
> > !!! Digest verification failed:
> > !!! /usr/portage/sys-apps/busybox/busybox-9999.ebuild
> > !!! Reason: Filesize does not match recorded size
> > !!! Got: 8493
> > !!! Expected: 8580
> >
> > . Why is the build system looking at the digest for version 9999 when
> > it
> > should be rebuilding version 1.23.1-r1?
>
> Well it's not. It just checks all the manifests and complains about
> errors. It doesn't affect the building of 1.23.1-r1.
I'm getting the same thing as Alan, and have been for several days.
> If I were you I'ld download the latest portage snapshot. That should take
> care of any remaining issues. Is your portage upto date?
My portage is sync'd daily, so it shouldn't need a whole new snapshot.
--
Rgds
Peter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: All sorts of digest verification failures
2015-11-15 10:43 ` Peter Humphrey
@ 2015-11-15 10:56 ` Matti Nykyri
2015-11-15 11:44 ` Peter Humphrey
0 siblings, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread
From: Matti Nykyri @ 2015-11-15 10:56 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> On Nov 15, 2015, at 12:43, Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On Sunday 15 Nov 2015 12:22:39 Matti Nykyri wrote:
>>> On Nov 15, 2015, at 11:59, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
> --->8
>>> Three days later. I'm still getting this error message, but with a
>>> nasty
>>> twist in the tail. emerge -puND @world reports (amongst others) the
>>>
>>> following update:
>>> [ebuild R ] sys-apps/busybox-1.23.1-r1 USE="-pam*"
>>>
>>> , and the error message I get on actually trying to start the update is
>>>
>>> !!! Digest verification failed:
>>> !!! /usr/portage/sys-apps/busybox/busybox-9999.ebuild
>>> !!! Reason: Filesize does not match recorded size
>>> !!! Got: 8493
>>> !!! Expected: 8580
>>>
>>> . Why is the build system looking at the digest for version 9999 when
>>> it
>>> should be rebuilding version 1.23.1-r1?
>>
>> Well it's not. It just checks all the manifests and complains about
>> errors. It doesn't affect the building of 1.23.1-r1.
>
> I'm getting the same thing as Alan, and have been for several days.
>
>> If I were you I'ld download the latest portage snapshot. That should take
>> care of any remaining issues. Is your portage upto date?
>
> My portage is sync'd daily, so it shouldn't need a whole new snapshot.
Sunc doesn't necessarily sync everything and if some random files are out of sync you either need to update them manually or get a new snapshot. I doubt the server/mirror is messed up, but you could try changing that. Downloading a new snapshot isn't that big a deal and that should definitely fix everything, so why not try that first?
You may also inspect each package and remanifest those that have problems (ebuild manifest). If you are certain that nobody has been fingering your ebuilds.
--
-M
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: All sorts of digest verification failures
2015-11-15 10:56 ` Matti Nykyri
@ 2015-11-15 11:44 ` Peter Humphrey
0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Peter Humphrey @ 2015-11-15 11:44 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Sunday 15 Nov 2015 12:56:16 Matti Nykyri wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 2015, at 12:43, Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk>
wrote:
> > I'm getting the same thing as Alan, and have been for several days.
> >
> >> If I were you I'ld download the latest portage snapshot. That should
> >> take care of any remaining issues. Is your portage upto date?
> >
> > My portage is sync'd daily, so it shouldn't need a whole new snapshot.
>
> Sunc doesn't necessarily sync everything
Eh? How can --sync not sync?
> ... and if some random files are out of sync you either need to update
> them manually or get a new snapshot. I doubt the server/mirror is messed
> up, but you could try changing that. Downloading a new snapshot isn't that
> big a deal and that should definitely fix everything, so why not try that
> first?
I may do so, but not today.
--
Rgds
Peter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: All sorts of digest verification failures
2015-11-15 10:22 ` Matti Nykyri
2015-11-15 10:43 ` Peter Humphrey
@ 2015-11-15 11:01 ` Alan Mackenzie
2015-11-15 11:15 ` Matti Nykyri
1 sibling, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread
From: Alan Mackenzie @ 2015-11-15 11:01 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Hello, Matti
On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 12:22:39PM +0200, Matti Nykyri wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 2015, at 11:59, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 06:45:44PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >>> On 12/11/2015 18:42, Grant Edwards wrote:
> >>>> On 2015-11-12, <wabenbau@gmail.com> <wabenbau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> After an emerge --sync that appeared to work with no problems, my
> >>>>> "emerge -auvND world" command is reporting that the Changelong files
> >>>>> are broken for about 2/3 of the packages it wants to update:
> > [ .... ]
> >> The dev are doing some $MAGIC to reinstate ChangeLogs and the first run
> >> is expected to take a while (i.e. several hours). I suppose you can
> >> expect some breakage till it finishes.
> >> It's being discussed and tracked on gentoo-dev, you can drop a mail
> >> there with specifics to let the devs know what's happening.
> > Three days later. I'm still getting this error message, but with a nasty
> > twist in the tail. emerge -puND @world reports (amongst others) the
> > following update:
> > [ebuild R ] sys-apps/busybox-1.23.1-r1 USE="-pam*"
> > , and the error message I get on actually trying to start the update is
> > !!! Digest verification failed:
> > !!! /usr/portage/sys-apps/busybox/busybox-9999.ebuild
> > !!! Reason: Filesize does not match recorded size
> > !!! Got: 8493
> > !!! Expected: 8580
> > . Why is the build system looking at the digest for version 9999 when it
> > should be rebuilding version 1.23.1-r1?
> Well it's not. It just checks all the manifests and complains about
> errors. It doesn't affect the building of 1.23.1-r1.
Ah, OK. But it causes emerge to bail out, so never gets round to
building 1.23.1-r1.
> If I were you I'ld download the latest portage snapshot. That should
> take care of any remaining issues. Is your portage upto date?
I'd just synched my portage tree immediately before attempting the build.
I'll try again tomorrow, in the hope everything will have been sorted out
by then.
> --
> -M
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: All sorts of digest verification failures
2015-11-15 11:01 ` Alan Mackenzie
@ 2015-11-15 11:15 ` Matti Nykyri
2015-11-15 19:33 ` Alan Mackenzie
0 siblings, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread
From: Matti Nykyri @ 2015-11-15 11:15 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> On Nov 15, 2015, at 13:01, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
>
>> Well it's not. It just checks all the manifests and complains about
>> errors. It doesn't affect the building of 1.23.1-r1.
Ok. I must be using some different switch then.
> Ah, OK. But it causes emerge to bail out, so never gets round to
> building 1.23.1-r1.
>
>> If I were you I'ld download the latest portage snapshot. That should
>> take care of any remaining issues. Is your portage upto date?
>
> I'd just synched my portage tree immediately before attempting the build.
> I'll try again tomorrow, in the hope everything will have been sorted out
> by then.
Syncing and getting a new snapshot is a bit different. With a snapshot you get a new clean start. Download it and unpack.
After that check that your portage package is upto date (emerge -av portage).
--
-Matti
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: All sorts of digest verification failures
2015-11-15 11:15 ` Matti Nykyri
@ 2015-11-15 19:33 ` Alan Mackenzie
2015-11-15 21:43 ` Matti Nykyri
0 siblings, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread
From: Alan Mackenzie @ 2015-11-15 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Hello, Matti.
On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 01:15:16PM +0200, Matti Nykyri wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 2015, at 13:01, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
> >> Well it's not. It just checks all the manifests and complains about
> >> errors. It doesn't affect the building of 1.23.1-r1.
> Ok. I must be using some different switch then.
> > Ah, OK. But it causes emerge to bail out, so never gets round to
> > building 1.23.1-r1.
> >> If I were you I'ld download the latest portage snapshot. That should
> >> take care of any remaining issues. Is your portage upto date?
I deleted my /usr/portage (with the exception of
/usr/portage/distfiles), and ran emerge --sync again. I get precisely
the same error message, still.
> > I'd just synched my portage tree immediately before attempting the build.
> > I'll try again tomorrow, in the hope everything will have been sorted out
> > by then.
> Syncing and getting a new snapshot is a bit different. With a snapshot you get a new clean start. Download it and unpack.
> After that check that your portage package is upto date (emerge -av portage).
Yes, my portage is fully up to date.
I think the Gentoo maintainers haven't fixed this problem, yet.
> --
> -Matti
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: All sorts of digest verification failures
2015-11-15 19:33 ` Alan Mackenzie
@ 2015-11-15 21:43 ` Matti Nykyri
0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Matti Nykyri @ 2015-11-15 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> On Nov 15, 2015, at 21:33, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
>
> Hello, Matti.
>
> I deleted my /usr/portage (with the exception of
> /usr/portage/distfiles), and ran emerge --sync again. I get precisely
> the same error message, still.
I rsync with rsync.europe.gentoo.org and with me the manifest with busybox is in order. Size for 9999.ebuild is 8493 and the Manifest has the same size. Also the hashes match.
I hope you get it right :)
--
-Matti
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: All sorts of digest verification failures
2015-11-15 9:59 ` Alan Mackenzie
2015-11-15 10:22 ` Matti Nykyri
@ 2015-11-15 10:41 ` Neil Bothwick
2015-11-15 11:42 ` Neil Bothwick
2015-11-15 14:56 ` Martin Vaeth
3 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Neil Bothwick @ 2015-11-15 10:41 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1904 bytes --]
On 15 November 2015 09:59:28 GMT+00:00, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 06:45:44PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On 12/11/2015 18:42, Grant Edwards wrote:
> > > On 2015-11-12, <wabenbau@gmail.com> <wabenbau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> After an emerge --sync that appeared to work with no problems,
> my
> > >>> "emerge -auvND world" command is reporting that the Changelong
> files
> > >>> are broken for about 2/3 of the packages it wants to update:
>
> [ .... ]
>
> > The dev are doing some $MAGIC to reinstate ChangeLogs and the first
> run
> > is expected to take a while (i.e. several hours). I suppose you can
> > expect some breakage till it finishes.
>
> > It's being discussed and tracked on gentoo-dev, you can drop a mail
> > there with specifics to let the devs know what's happening.
>
> Three days later. I'm still getting this error message, but with a
> nasty
> twist in the tail. emerge -puND @world reports (amongst others) the
> following update:
>
> [ebuild R ] sys-apps/busybox-1.23.1-r1 USE="-pam*"
>
> , and the error message I get on actually trying to start the update
> is
>
> !!! Digest verification failed:
> !!! /usr/portage/sys-apps/busybox/busybox-9999.ebuild
> !!! Reason: Filesize does not match recorded size
> !!! Got: 8493
> !!! Expected: 8580
>
> . Why is the build system looking at the digest for version 9999 when
> it
> should be rebuilding version 1.23.1-r1?
>
> > --
> > Alan McKinnon
> > alan.mckinnon@gmail.com
>
> --
> Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Because the manifest covers all files in the ebuild directory, if any is changed the ebuilds are considered untrustworthy. This one has been around for a few days and there is an open bug report.
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3522 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: All sorts of digest verification failures
2015-11-15 9:59 ` Alan Mackenzie
2015-11-15 10:22 ` Matti Nykyri
2015-11-15 10:41 ` Neil Bothwick
@ 2015-11-15 11:42 ` Neil Bothwick
2015-11-15 14:56 ` Martin Vaeth
3 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Neil Bothwick @ 2015-11-15 11:42 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1043 bytes --]
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 09:59:28 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [ebuild R ] sys-apps/busybox-1.23.1-r1 USE="-pam*"
>
> , and the error message I get on actually trying to start the update is
>
> !!! Digest verification failed:
> !!! /usr/portage/sys-apps/busybox/busybox-9999.ebuild
> !!! Reason: Filesize does not match recorded size
> !!! Got: 8493
> !!! Expected: 8580
>
> . Why is the build system looking at the digest for version 9999 when
> it should be rebuilding version 1.23.1-r1?
The manifest covers all files in the ebuild's directory. If one fails the
test, the entire directory is considered suspect so the ebuild has to be
skipped.
This has been going on a for a few days, there is an open bug but no
apparent solution. The manifests are now generated automatically when a
git commit is made, but there appears to be something going wrong with
the process in this instance.
--
Neil Bothwick
Megabyte: (n.) more than you can comprehend and less than you'll need.
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [gentoo-user] Re: All sorts of digest verification failures
2015-11-15 9:59 ` Alan Mackenzie
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2015-11-15 11:42 ` Neil Bothwick
@ 2015-11-15 14:56 ` Martin Vaeth
2015-11-15 17:17 ` Neil Bothwick
2015-11-15 19:29 ` Alan Mackenzie
3 siblings, 2 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Martin Vaeth @ 2015-11-15 14:56 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
> !!! /usr/portage/sys-apps/busybox/busybox-9999.ebuild
> !!! Got: 8493
> !!! Expected: 8580
Do you use the default (rsync) for syncing, or have you changed
the method?
I have the above claimed filesize (8493), but the Manifest
I obtained from rsync is correct.
The timestamp of the Manifest file in that folder is
Nov 13, 08:17:31 (UTC)
(do not forget to export TZ=UTC when you check the date).
Exactly the same date has the ChangeLog file in that folder
(which is not surprsing).
If in your case ChangeLog and Manifest *both* have an older date,
you got the data perhaps from an outdated mirror.
If ChangeLog has the same date, but Manifest is older (or newer
and still wrong), something strange is going on. In such a case,
one should also consider reasons like local filesystem errors.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: All sorts of digest verification failures
2015-11-15 14:56 ` Martin Vaeth
@ 2015-11-15 17:17 ` Neil Bothwick
2015-11-15 19:05 ` Martin Vaeth
2015-11-15 19:29 ` Alan Mackenzie
1 sibling, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread
From: Neil Bothwick @ 2015-11-15 17:17 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1573 bytes --]
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 14:56:42 +0000 (UTC), Martin Vaeth wrote:
> > !!! /usr/portage/sys-apps/busybox/busybox-9999.ebuild
> > !!! Got: 8493
> > !!! Expected: 8580
>
> Do you use the default (rsync) for syncing, or have you changed
> the method?
>
> I have the above claimed filesize (8493), but the Manifest
> I obtained from rsync is correct.
>
> The timestamp of the Manifest file in that folder is
> Nov 13, 08:17:31 (UTC)
> (do not forget to export TZ=UTC when you check the date).
> Exactly the same date has the ChangeLog file in that folder
> (which is not surprsing).
>
> If in your case ChangeLog and Manifest *both* have an older date,
> you got the data perhaps from an outdated mirror.
>
I deleted the busybox directory from the tree then ran emerge --sync. The
error is still there
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 8388 Aug 9 21:34 busybox-1.21.0.ebuild
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 8573 Aug 9 21:34 busybox-1.23.1.ebuild
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 8611 Aug 9 21:34 busybox-1.23.1-r1.ebuild
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 8724 Aug 9 21:34 busybox-1.23.2.ebuild
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 8577 Nov 13 06:01 busybox-1.24.1.ebuild
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 8493 Nov 13 06:01 busybox-9999.ebuild
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4402 Nov 13 07:17 ChangeLog
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 60228 Nov 9 05:01 ChangeLog-2015
drwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1528 Nov 15 17:15 files
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 19287 Nov 13 07:17 Manifest
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 788 Aug 24 22:01 metadata.xml
--
Neil Bothwick
Our bikinis are exciting. They are simply the tops.
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [gentoo-user] Re: All sorts of digest verification failures
2015-11-15 17:17 ` Neil Bothwick
@ 2015-11-15 19:05 ` Martin Vaeth
2015-11-15 20:19 ` Dale
2015-11-16 1:39 ` walt
0 siblings, 2 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Martin Vaeth @ 2015-11-15 19:05 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I deleted the busybox directory from the tree then ran emerge --sync.
> The error is still there
You have the same files that I have.
Unfortunately, only now I actually did:
$ grep busybox-9999 Manifest
EBUILD busybox-9999.ebuild 8580 [...]
???
I have the same wrong size recorded in the Manifest!
No idea why portage didn't yell at me - there seems
to be another bug involved.
So, sorry, my previous conjecture was wrong.
The only information which I can give you currently,
is that probably all mirrors contain the same broken Manifest
in the moment.
*Perhaps* (a very wild conjecture!) the reason why this Manifest
got not updated is the same bug which caused portage not to yell
at me, despite the broken Manifest.
As a temporary hack, calling "ebuild manifest" on that file is
probably the only reasonable way to proceed, but this problem
must be fixed, of course...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: All sorts of digest verification failures
2015-11-15 19:05 ` Martin Vaeth
@ 2015-11-15 20:19 ` Dale
2015-11-15 20:29 ` covici
2015-11-15 20:43 ` Grant Edwards
2015-11-16 1:39 ` walt
1 sibling, 2 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Dale @ 2015-11-15 20:19 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
>> I deleted the busybox directory from the tree then ran emerge --sync.
>> The error is still there
> You have the same files that I have.
> Unfortunately, only now I actually did:
>
> $ grep busybox-9999 Manifest
> EBUILD busybox-9999.ebuild 8580 [...]
>
> ???
> I have the same wrong size recorded in the Manifest!
> No idea why portage didn't yell at me - there seems
> to be another bug involved.
>
> So, sorry, my previous conjecture was wrong.
>
> The only information which I can give you currently,
> is that probably all mirrors contain the same broken Manifest
> in the moment.
>
> *Perhaps* (a very wild conjecture!) the reason why this Manifest
> got not updated is the same bug which caused portage not to yell
> at me, despite the broken Manifest.
>
> As a temporary hack, calling "ebuild manifest" on that file is
> probably the only reasonable way to proceed, but this problem
> must be fixed, of course...
>
>
>
Wasn't there a emerge option to ignore the manifest? I seem to recall
there used to be one but it was a LONG time ago. Of course, if someone
has tinkered with something that would be a bad thing to do.
Dale
:-) :-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: All sorts of digest verification failures
2015-11-15 20:19 ` Dale
@ 2015-11-15 20:29 ` covici
2015-11-15 21:02 ` Simon Thelen
2015-11-15 20:43 ` Grant Edwards
1 sibling, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread
From: covici @ 2015-11-15 20:29 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Martin Vaeth wrote:
> > Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> >> I deleted the busybox directory from the tree then ran emerge --sync.
> >> The error is still there
> > You have the same files that I have.
> > Unfortunately, only now I actually did:
> >
> > $ grep busybox-9999 Manifest
> > EBUILD busybox-9999.ebuild 8580 [...]
> >
> > ???
> > I have the same wrong size recorded in the Manifest!
> > No idea why portage didn't yell at me - there seems
> > to be another bug involved.
> >
> > So, sorry, my previous conjecture was wrong.
> >
> > The only information which I can give you currently,
> > is that probably all mirrors contain the same broken Manifest
> > in the moment.
> >
> > *Perhaps* (a very wild conjecture!) the reason why this Manifest
> > got not updated is the same bug which caused portage not to yell
> > at me, despite the broken Manifest.
> >
> > As a temporary hack, calling "ebuild manifest" on that file is
> > probably the only reasonable way to proceed, but this problem
> > must be fixed, of course...
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Wasn't there a emerge option to ignore the manifest? I seem to recall
> there used to be one but it was a LONG time ago. Of course, if someone
> has tinkered with something that would be a bad thing to do.
I thought I remembered something where the manifest no longer checks the
ebuild, just the file in distfiles -- I thought I remembered seeing this
somewhere. It was at a time when we got all the manifests all at once.
--
Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is:
How do
you spend it?
John Covici
covici@ccs.covici.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: All sorts of digest verification failures
2015-11-15 20:29 ` covici
@ 2015-11-15 21:02 ` Simon Thelen
2015-11-16 6:45 ` Martin Vaeth
0 siblings, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread
From: Simon Thelen @ 2015-11-15 21:02 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On 15-11-15 at 15:29, covici@ccs.covici.com wrote:
> Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Martin Vaeth wrote:
> > > Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
[..]
> > > As a temporary hack, calling "ebuild manifest" on that file is
> > > probably the only reasonable way to proceed, but this problem
> > > must be fixed, of course...
> > Wasn't there a emerge option to ignore the manifest? I seem to recall
> > there used to be one but it was a LONG time ago. Of course, if someone
> > has tinkered with something that would be a bad thing to do.
> I thought I remembered something where the manifest no longer checks the
> ebuild, just the file in distfiles -- I thought I remembered seeing this
> somewhere. It was at a time when we got all the manifests all at once.
I sync from git and none of my Manifests track the ebuilds, so this
could be a thing. Note how the Manifest for busybox in the gentoo.git
tree doesn't have manifests for any of the ebuilds. [1]
[1]: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/tree/sys-apps/busybox/Manifest
--
Simon Thelen
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [gentoo-user] Re: All sorts of digest verification failures
2015-11-15 21:02 ` Simon Thelen
@ 2015-11-16 6:45 ` Martin Vaeth
2015-11-16 7:33 ` covici
0 siblings, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread
From: Martin Vaeth @ 2015-11-16 6:45 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Simon Thelen <gentoo-user@c-14.de> wrote:
> I sync from git and none of my Manifests track the ebuilds, so this
> could be a thing.
No. git has (probably, I didn't check)
thin-manifests = true
in its metadata/layout.conf, but for rsync this should
not be the case for security reasons. I double-checked,
and I have indeed thin-manifests = false there, as it should be.
Nevertheless, the conflict was not reported.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: All sorts of digest verification failures
2015-11-16 6:45 ` Martin Vaeth
@ 2015-11-16 7:33 ` covici
2015-11-16 17:21 ` Martin Vaeth
0 siblings, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread
From: covici @ 2015-11-16 7:33 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Martin Vaeth <martin@mvath.de> wrote:
> Simon Thelen <gentoo-user@c-14.de> wrote:
> > I sync from git and none of my Manifests track the ebuilds, so this
> > could be a thing.
>
> No. git has (probably, I didn't check)
> thin-manifests = true
> in its metadata/layout.conf, but for rsync this should
> not be the case for security reasons. I double-checked,
> and I have indeed thin-manifests = false there, as it should be.
> Nevertheless, the conflict was not reported.
I have thinmanifests=true as specified in some news item or post, I
think this was a mandatory change some time ago using rsync. They
figured the ebuilds sync anyway so no reason for the manifests to have
them.
--
Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is:
How do
you spend it?
John Covici
covici@ccs.covici.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread* [gentoo-user] Re: All sorts of digest verification failures
2015-11-16 7:33 ` covici
@ 2015-11-16 17:21 ` Martin Vaeth
2015-11-16 21:49 ` Marc Joliet
0 siblings, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread
From: Martin Vaeth @ 2015-11-16 17:21 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
covici@ccs.covici.com <covici@ccs.covici.com> wrote:
>
> I have thinmanifests=true as specified in some news item or post, I
> think this was a mandatory change some time ago using rsync.
If you really use rsync/webrsync and not git, this is unlikely:
The file containing this line (metadata/layout.conf) should be
overridden at every rsync (unless you took special measures,
but this was certainly never recommended).
> They figured the ebuilds sync anyway so no reason for the
> manifests to have them.
It is not about syncing but about security (checksums with
signatures should safe you from MITM and even compromised
servers). Thin-manifests was only meant for git, because git
already contains checksums ('though only less secure sha1,
but that's a different story), so it was decided that no
duplicate checksums are needed for git.
For *rsync* the situation is different.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: All sorts of digest verification failures
2015-11-16 17:21 ` Martin Vaeth
@ 2015-11-16 21:49 ` Marc Joliet
2015-11-16 22:32 ` Rich Freeman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread
From: Marc Joliet @ 2015-11-16 21:49 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1168 bytes --]
On Monday 16 November 2015 17:21:07 Martin Vaeth wrote:
>covici@ccs.covici.com <covici@ccs.covici.com> wrote:
>> I have thinmanifests=true as specified in some news item or post, I
>> think this was a mandatory change some time ago using rsync.
>
>If you really use rsync/webrsync and not git, this is unlikely:
>The file containing this line (metadata/layout.conf) should be
>overridden at every rsync (unless you took special measures,
>but this was certainly never recommended).
>
>> They figured the ebuilds sync anyway so no reason for the
>> manifests to have them.
>
>It is not about syncing but about security (checksums with
>signatures should safe you from MITM and even compromised
>servers). Thin-manifests was only meant for git, because git
>already contains checksums ('though only less secure sha1,
>but that's a different story), so it was decided that no
>duplicate checksums are needed for git.
>For *rsync* the situation is different.
Don't forget that in Gentoo all commits are also GPG signed.
--
Marc Joliet
--
"People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we
don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [gentoo-user] Re: All sorts of digest verification failures
2015-11-15 20:19 ` Dale
2015-11-15 20:29 ` covici
@ 2015-11-15 20:43 ` Grant Edwards
2015-11-16 8:51 ` Dale
1 sibling, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread
From: Grant Edwards @ 2015-11-15 20:43 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On 2015-11-15, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wasn't there a emerge option to ignore the manifest? I seem to recall
> there used to be one but it was a LONG time ago. Of course, if someone
> has tinkered with something that would be a bad thing to do.
If the digest failures are for packages you don't have installed, just
removing the entire directory for each of the broken manifests is one
temporary work-around.
--
Grant
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: All sorts of digest verification failures
2015-11-15 20:43 ` Grant Edwards
@ 2015-11-16 8:51 ` Dale
0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Dale @ 2015-11-16 8:51 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2015-11-15, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Wasn't there a emerge option to ignore the manifest? I seem to recall
>> there used to be one but it was a LONG time ago. Of course, if someone
>> has tinkered with something that would be a bad thing to do.
> If the digest failures are for packages you don't have installed, just
> removing the entire directory for each of the broken manifests is one
> temporary work-around.
>
Thing is, one of the ones that fails is a package that I have
installed. That would be busybox and I think that is likely on
everyone's system so this would affect every Gentoo system out there. I
think I read on -dev somewhere a while back that busybox ended up being
pulled in as part of the @system profile/set.
Anyway, I figure they will have a fix before to long. I just find it
hard to believe that with all the planning that was put into this, the
changelogs and these issues were missed. It's not like they decided to
change this over a short time frame. They been working on this for
ages. Live and learn I guess. ;-)
Dale
:-) :-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [gentoo-user] Re: All sorts of digest verification failures
2015-11-15 19:05 ` Martin Vaeth
2015-11-15 20:19 ` Dale
@ 2015-11-16 1:39 ` walt
2015-11-16 9:33 ` Neil Bothwick
1 sibling, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread
From: walt @ 2015-11-16 1:39 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 19:05:26 +0000 (UTC)
Martin Vaeth <martin@mvath.de> wrote:
> Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > I deleted the busybox directory from the tree then ran emerge
> > --sync. The error is still there
>
> You have the same files that I have.
> Unfortunately, only now I actually did:
>
> $ grep busybox-9999 Manifest
> EBUILD busybox-9999.ebuild 8580 [...]
>
> ???
> I have the same wrong size recorded in the Manifest!
> No idea why portage didn't yell at me - there seems
> to be another bug involved...
I did the same thing today (15 Nov) and it succeeded.
However, I ran the ebuild command on a non-broken ebuild. Try
repeating the same command on busybox 1.23.x or 1.24.x
I hope the gentoo devs will fix this bug before you have a chance to
test my advice :)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: All sorts of digest verification failures
2015-11-15 14:56 ` Martin Vaeth
2015-11-15 17:17 ` Neil Bothwick
@ 2015-11-15 19:29 ` Alan Mackenzie
1 sibling, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Alan Mackenzie @ 2015-11-15 19:29 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Hello, Martin.
On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 02:56:42PM +0000, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
> > !!! /usr/portage/sys-apps/busybox/busybox-9999.ebuild
> > !!! Got: 8493
> > !!! Expected: 8580
> Do you use the default (rsync) for syncing, or have you changed
> the method?
rsync all the time.
> I have the above claimed filesize (8493), but the Manifest
> I obtained from rsync is correct.
> The timestamp of the Manifest file in that folder is
> Nov 13, 08:17:31 (UTC)
I have 07:17:31 +0000 for Manifest and ChangeLog. Are you sure your
08:17:31 isn't central European time?
> (do not forget to export TZ=UTC when you check the date).
> Exactly the same date has the ChangeLog file in that folder
> (which is not surprsing).
It does indeed.
> If in your case ChangeLog and Manifest *both* have an older date,
> you got the data perhaps from an outdated mirror.
> If ChangeLog has the same date, but Manifest is older (or newer
> and still wrong), something strange is going on. In such a case,
> one should also consider reasons like local filesystem errors.
I don't think I've got a filesystem error: ext3 is tried and tested.
After downloading /etc/portage via rsync again, I still get the same
error.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread