I don't see deep in the topic but I think the file should be renamed
1) It could probably be renamed at the source /distfiles/ directory, but
then there would be problem with the download from vendor where the file
has still the original name.
2) When ebuild downloads the file (with name given by vendor), it could
save it under another name to the /usr/portage/distfiles/ (or the file
could be renamed after it is downloaded). When user has to download the
file manually, he/she should be instructed to save the file as
/usr/portage/distfiles/file-name. It is important to download the fresh
file and not to use the old one laying somewhere on the disk.
I think it is not important what suffix will be appended to the file
name but it could be transparent to use release string (or something
other appropriate) from the ebuild name (something like "-r1") where the
new file is used the first time.
These are just thoughts, I don't know how the whole portage works.
Joshua Nichols napsal(a):
> It seems some of the VM vendors, mostly Sun and IBM, just love to
> release new versions of their VMs, but without changing the filename
> they get released as. In short, this means that it breaks our ebuilds,
> because the instructions for getting the file are the same, but the file
> it leads to is different, and therefore the digest breaks.
> There are currently at least 3 bugs filed for this issue:
> There are a few solutions.
> * Just redigest the ebuild with the new distfile. This would be the
> quickest solution, but it'd be problematic because then the digest would
> be broken for people that already have the distfiles.
> * Have users rename the files. This is used in a few cases at least.
> This leads to the question of how to version the ebuilds though, because
> they don't follow a sane (to us) versioning scheme, ie GA, SR-1, SR-2, etc.
> * Some totally awesome way I haven't of yet.
> - Josh