From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 18 16:47:20 2003 Return-Path: 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 C18EB16A4B3 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:47:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net (sccrmhc12.comcast.net [204.127.202.56]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB96443FB1 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:47:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.no-ip.com) Received: from be-well.ilk.org (be-well.no-ip.com[66.30.200.37]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2003091823471901200hmrg2e>; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 23:47:19 +0000 Received: from be-well.ilk.org (lowellg.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.200.37] (may be forged)) by be-well.ilk.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8INlICo051540 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:47:18 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.no-ip.com) Received: (from lowell@localhost) by be-well.ilk.org (8.12.9/8.12.6/Submit) id h8INlEIb051537; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:47:14 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: be-well.ilk.org: lowell set sender to freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org using -f Sender: lowell@be-well.no-ip.com To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <247FA9B2-E985-11D7-B652-000A95A0485E@allthingscomputed.com> From: Lowell Gilbert Date: 18 Sep 2003 19:47:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: <247FA9B2-E985-11D7-B652-000A95A0485E@allthingscomputed.com> Message-ID: <44r82dbqwu.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> Lines: 11 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: ghostscript-gnu distfile checksum error - WORKAROUND (was: Stop error installing /usr/ports/mail/evolution) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 23:47:20 -0000 "Barry C. Hawkins" writes: > Thanks for the responses guys. It's odd to me that such a small file > would have failed to download properly when so many others were > downloaded during the same process without issue. I will chalk this > one up to experience and (hopefully ;^) ) remember it for the future. I don't think the file had problems downloading; I think you just had an old copy. The filename has no version information built in, so when they change it, the new version has the same name, but a different checksum.