| 1 |
On 22/07/14 19:03, Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
> J. Roeleveld wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 05:05:43 PM Bill Kenworthy wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> I have a couple of systems with flash that are always a pain to update |
| 5 |
>>> because the checksums fail so you have to manually force a manifest |
| 6 |
>>> rebuild first. As I have to update them anyway, is there a ways to |
| 7 |
>>> override the portage checksums and say install anyway? Because this |
| 8 |
>>> package always fails anyway, I cant see any security gain by having a |
| 9 |
>>> manual update every-time anyway. |
| 10 |
>> I would be more interested in finding out why it fails? |
| 11 |
>> I use adobe flash myself and never experience a checksum issue with it. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> -- |
| 14 |
>> Joost |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> . |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Same here. I have it installed here and don't recall ever having a |
| 20 |
> digest issue. It could be that something is off somewhere. If so, I'd |
| 21 |
> rethink bypassing the checks. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Dale |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> :-) :-) |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Hmm, that's interesting. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Caused me to look closer ... I am pulling from http-replicator which |
| 31 |
doesnt update the package if it cant see a name change (and adobe don't |
| 32 |
change the name on the package - just the directory its pulled from) so |
| 33 |
of course it fails checksum. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Thanks for the hints to track this down. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
BillK |
Archives