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 :-) :-)
