| 1 |
On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 07:31:35 PM Bill Kenworthy wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 22/07/14 19:03, Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
> > J. Roeleveld wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 05:05:43 PM Bill Kenworthy wrote: |
| 5 |
> >>> I have a couple of systems with flash that are always a pain to update |
| 6 |
> >>> because the checksums fail so you have to manually force a manifest |
| 7 |
> >>> rebuild first. As I have to update them anyway, is there a ways to |
| 8 |
> >>> override the portage checksums and say install anyway? Because this |
| 9 |
> >>> package always fails anyway, I cant see any security gain by having a |
| 10 |
> >>> manual update every-time anyway. |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >> I would be more interested in finding out why it fails? |
| 13 |
> >> I use adobe flash myself and never experience a checksum issue with it. |
| 14 |
> >> |
| 15 |
> >> -- |
| 16 |
> >> Joost |
| 17 |
> >> |
| 18 |
> >> . |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > Same here. I have it installed here and don't recall ever having a |
| 21 |
> > digest issue. It could be that something is off somewhere. If so, I'd |
| 22 |
> > rethink bypassing the checks. |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > Dale |
| 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 |
Sounds like you might have been running a very old version without realising? |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
I personally would consider it a bug in http-replicator that it doesn't take |
| 40 |
the actual location or filedate into account. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
Joost |
Archives