From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Nov 27 2:18: 6 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0430337B401 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 02:18:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk [81.2.69.218]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B509443EA9 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 02:18:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) Received: from happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gARAHsQf013980 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:17:55 GMT (envelope-from matthew@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk) Received: (from matthew@localhost) by happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gARAHnbv013979 for freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:17:49 GMT Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:17:49 +0000 From: Matthew Seaman To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Is this worthy of a bug report (PR) ? Message-ID: <20021127101749.GA13441@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophi> Mail-Followup-To: Matthew Seaman , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG References: <91915.1038391013@monkeys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <91915.1038391013@monkeys.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_02_03, USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_MUTT version=2.43 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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