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
