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
