Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:17:49 +0000 From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Is this worthy of a bug report (PR) ? Message-ID: <20021127101749.GA13441@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophi> In-Reply-To: <91915.1038391013@monkeys.com> References: <91915.1038391013@monkeys.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 01:56:53AM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
> Very strange.
>
> I built this exact same port (print/ghostscript-gnu) on a different
> 4.7-RELEASE system just about a week ago and I had no problems. Now
> however, there seems to be a problem with the checksum on:
>
> ghostscript/eplaser-3.0.4-651.tgz
>
> Anybody know what gives here?
If you still have the eplaser-3.0.4-651.tgz file from the port you
built a few weeks ago, it would be a good thing to compare the
contents of the two, and try and work out why the checksum on the
distfile has changed.
> Should I file a PR on this?
The distfile for the print/ghostscript-gnu port was modified two weeks
ago to add a second checksum for the eplaser stuff:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/print/ghostscript-gnu/distinfo
If your copy of eplaser matches either of:
MD5 (ghostscript/eplaser-3.0.4-651.tgz) = 71ba8635e865731c51b6e8fab3c15d2d
MD5 (ghostscript/eplaser-3.0.4-651.tgz) = 758b6adbe96a75510105d3d4f204bc5c
then all you need to do is cvsup a fresher ports tree. Otherwise, yes
a PR (maybe CC'd to the port maintainer) would be in order.
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks
Savill Way
Marlow
Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021127101749.GA13441>