From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 24 06:50:30 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B406916A428 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:50:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7847043D69 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:50:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id jAO6oESG001834 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:50:14 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) id jAO6oEoE001833; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:50:14 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:50:14 GMT Message-Id: <200511240650.jAO6oEoE001833@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Pav Lucistnik Cc: Subject: Re: ports/89466: SHA256 sums for 'accessibility/' and 'shells/' X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Pav Lucistnik List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:50:30 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/89466; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Pav Lucistnik To: Ed Schouten Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/89466: SHA256 sums for 'accessibility/' and 'shells/' Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 00:35:11 +0100 --=-2wFtJNhinhihGxohTVZk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ed Schouten p=ED=B9e v =E8t 24. 11. 2005 v 00:31 +0100: > * Pav Lucistnik wrote: > > > I was totally bored this evening, so I decided to do some SHA256 > > > checksumming on the 'accesibility/' and 'shells/' categories. Why tho= se? > > > Don't ask me ;-) > >=20 > > I assume you also obtained approvals from all affected maintainers? >=20 > Well, getting all maintainers' approval would be quite hard to > accomplish. Would such a minor update require the maintainer's approval? No one told me opposite yet, so I assume that it's required. > > > I ran a `make checksum` afterwards and all MD5 and SHA256 sums were > > > okay. > >=20 > > No they weren't. If you first created new sums then validated them, how > > could you possible detect changes? >=20 > When I finished adding the sums to the tree, I moved my distfiles > directory out of the way and ran the `make checksum`, thus forcing Ports > to refetch and check. No. You're checking against newly created checksums. You have to run make checksum before you write new distinfos. --=20 Pav Lucistnik On real UNIX, /usr/bin/more prints -More-. --=-2wFtJNhinhihGxohTVZk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Toto je =?iso-8859-2?Q?digit=E1ln=EC?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_podepsan=E1?= =?iso-8859-2?Q?_=E8=E1st?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_zpr=E1vy?= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBDhPyvntdYP8FOsoIRAsQGAJwP24DLk2+C5EO2fZSS6MRbdpuuHgCfcyLQ MAeyWBKpYBNLNExDT5sbLlM= =BpCG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-2wFtJNhinhihGxohTVZk--