From owner-freebsd-python@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 26 20:19:33 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-python@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D25C3DD9; Mon, 26 May 2014 20:19:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7ABE2783; Mon, 26 May 2014 20:19:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.21] (unknown [130.255.19.191]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB3FB43B4A; Mon, 26 May 2014 15:19:16 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <5383A1B3.9070501@marino.st> Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 22:18:59 +0200 From: John Marino Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?QmFydMWCb21pZWogUnV0a293c2tp?= , marino@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/189666: devel/py-demjson: unfetchable due to rerolled tarball References: <201405260846.s4Q8kUdC079970@freefall.freebsd.org> <53839C13.4040405@marino.st> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: ports@robakdesign.com, freebsd-python@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-python@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD-specific Python issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 20:19:33 -0000 On 5/26/2014 22:12, Bartłomiej Rutkowski wrote: > SHA256 (demjson-2.0.tar.gz) = 24f638daa0c28a9d44db2282d46ea3edfd4c7d11a656e38677b741620bf1483d > SIZE (demjson-2.0.tar.gz) = 115914 > > what perfectly matches what the author says it should be. I've asked him if he can check his release system and distfiles providers to see if he can spot any changes and if he can by any chance match our sum/size that's incorrect to anything around there. > > Any chance you or anyone else have the 'bad' distfiles available on their system for inspection? I have the original 2.0 (One of the ones upstream says never existed): http://muscles.dragonflybsd.org/misc/demjson-2.0.tar.gz 189103 May 26 13:15 demjson-2.0.tar.gz So 2.0 built once, but then the distfile changed not once but twice and the 115k version is the at least the 3rd iteration. I never got the intermediate iteration. Regards, John