From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 25 17:40:08 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 5648016A41F for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:40:08 +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 F409143D45 for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:40:07 +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 jAPHe7vT008661 for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:40:07 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) id jAPHe75t008660; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:40:07 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:40:07 GMT Message-Id: <200511251740.jAPHe75t008660@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Ed Schouten 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: Ed Schouten List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:40:08 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/89466; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Ed Schouten To: Pav Lucistnik Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/89466: SHA256 sums for 'accessibility/' and 'shells/' Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:39:02 +0100 --AhCCdIwQf0d0uSA5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Pav Lucistnik wrote: > Ed Schouten p??e v ?t 24. 11. 2005 v 00:31 +0100: >=20 > > * Pav Lucistnik wrote: > > > > I was totally bored this evening, so I decided to do some SHA256 > > > > checksumming on the 'accesibility/' and 'shells/' categories. Why t= hose? > > > > 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? >=20 > No one told me opposite yet, so I assume that it's required. Well, I guess it is quite impossible to realise then. Just tried to be helpful ;-) > > > > 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, h= ow > > > 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. >=20 > No. You're checking against newly created checksums. You have to run > make checksum before you write new distinfos. So you mean `make checksum` before you alter any distinfo files? I did that. I'd better explain all steps I took; | /usr/ports/archivers # make -j4 fetch | /usr/ports/archivers # make checksum | | /usr/ports/archivers # mv ../distfiles ../distfiles-old | /usr/ports/archivers # mkdir ../distfiles | /usr/ports/archivers # make -j4 fetch | /usr/ports/archivers # make checksum That would be good, right? Yours, --=20 Ed Schouten WWW: http://g-rave.nl/ --AhCCdIwQf0d0uSA5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDh0w2mVI4SHXwmhERAqJrAJ0eMuEqI4h46CnBuUtSI9QQpj/2ZQCgmpc4 upWR8Xjwvpy++YEp/s73ULI= =5BGj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --AhCCdIwQf0d0uSA5--