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 2633E13877A for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:48:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E895DE0FD7; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:48:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtpq2.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net (smtpq2.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net [212.54.42.165]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD94CE0FCB for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:48:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [212.54.42.135] (helo=smtp4.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net) by smtpq2.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1X9YYa-0003X1-3D for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:48:32 +0200 Received: from 53579160.cm-6-8c.dynamic.ziggo.nl ([83.87.145.96] helo=data.antarean.org) by smtp4.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1X9YYZ-0000eJ-PT for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:48:32 +0200 Received: from andromeda.localnet (unknown [62.41.73.80]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by data.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1353A4C for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:48:22 +0200 (CEST) From: "J. Roeleveld" To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] adobe flash Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:48:21 +0200 Message-ID: <8681398.4scCJH6CEJ@andromeda> Organization: Antarean User-Agent: KMail/4.12.5 (Linux/3.12.21-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.12.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <53CE4B97.9000406@iinet.net.au> References: <53CE2967.1010105@iinet.net.au> <53CE44F4.3050501@gmail.com> <53CE4B97.9000406@iinet.net.au> 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Ziggo-spambar: ---- X-Ziggo-spamscore: -4.9 X-Ziggo-spamreport: ALL_TRUSTED=-1,BAYES_00=-1.9,PROLO_TRUST_RDNS=-3,RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982 X-Ziggo-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Flag: No X-Archives-Salt: bfe7d092-f5a6-4780-b30f-8d8f2f4d8d04 X-Archives-Hash: e968cf23da9777d2a1bca1c5b131d4c2 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