From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sat Sep 17 18:41:13 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD683BDEC44 for ; Sat, 17 Sep 2016 18:41:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwmaillists@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-wm0-x22d.google.com (mail-wm0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C1733A4 for ; Sat, 17 Sep 2016 18:41:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwmaillists@googlemail.com) Received: by mail-wm0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id 1so93510485wmz.1 for ; Sat, 17 Sep 2016 11:41:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=nat0QzoAjNh2AiGWI/yXJWB/SSc0O0/1J/JMfDYXbvw=; b=m4xLgnrpB7xo7WkGsRnw0LReSQP8uigjP6iF4A8zPJygnIqNVzigHMY/KNmQb8Nz/G t3PyszG3vYh0Vb4Ku9Dk/F/o49dHBCbpA6t5lPYR3En9t0QC0bU3AbKXXdd2tF/sHRHK p+1tZV/7+/UkVA7vuM//bCEYoRNLBjWJCmT5OCIucbA3cG3m/aFWChEk9ZucyqqNebI3 AfzXZspZaLL6eIBhV8T9KLDQVdq1YH9KmbZq1qo6M5bjaE9TbIr4R6Hqq2sdnmen6bLT WwgtcNcR9EPMvk2Vex0N8FHinrkDmRHCYe70UKtoZ5YBFdg0a6XIoohcaeecT+NFOwoB t10Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nat0QzoAjNh2AiGWI/yXJWB/SSc0O0/1J/JMfDYXbvw=; b=Av5yHyd8QgA7g/S/3b5OGmUevsKXLn80IpWEGi4L2UKD1fDzwZs7A1mPKqnquG3rJJ X33XYxdxVgWU5nYJlmUIleFlN3exF8Zk+DXlfeg9q1T71ylPldAHzuRx24pGBUUbkAkf SPgVIU/lZKVjk/lX7BWYVmUynPRF4q5uvGo861OVN4frJMlFR2W2GJjvPGf9aTHQduSB yP1PFh1LXT7jhpcdDgNHoQiTQM2ykIAL8DsXLk7llsqHdoP63YDTELbpS+ShBsXvFUob PzGPgrDlUc1LEDPA+YCZZPjG66zTe8OE0tmsnWJt14vT74Ry6heqHPVPRMbRLAmIQMzV VNJA== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwN+otUQCOOsap43YB6YtILPet+qtGxvsnkcn9I8VnIz7gs9pbxzgVmvalRA/Ju28A== X-Received: by 10.28.18.18 with SMTP id 18mr2651465wms.28.1474137670292; Sat, 17 Sep 2016 11:41:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gumby.homeunix.com ([81.17.24.158]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m68sm13318591wmg.6.2016.09.17.11.41.08 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Sat, 17 Sep 2016 11:41:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 19:41:07 +0100 From: RW To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portsnap question Message-ID: <20160917194107.519a48f4@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <20160917140920.GA2033@e733> References: <20160917140920.GA2033@e733> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.0 (GTK+ 2.24.29; amd64-portbld-freebsd10.3) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 18:41:13 -0000 On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 17:09:20 +0300 Aleksander Alekseev wrote: > > [root@kabini1, /etc, 8:10:30am] 353 % portsnap fetch update > > Looking up portsnap.FreeBSD.org mirrors... 7 mirrors found. > > Fetching snapshot tag from your-org.portsnap.freebsd.org... done. > > Fetching snapshot metadata... done. > > Updating from Sat Aug 27 01:19:19 MCDT 2016 to Sat Sep 17 04:21:58 > > MCDT 2016. > > Fetching 5 metadata patches... done. > > Applying metadata patches... done. > > Fetching 5 metadata files... /usr/sbin/portsnap: cannot open > > 39ffac906fafd69bfbba7c63d15dccb8ccbc8adaa755a212be13200b41f1d215.gz: > > No such file or directory > > metadata is corrupt. > > Same issue here (11.0-RC2). Must be some sort of race condition or > something in portspap since second execution of `portsnap fetch > update` always works flawlessly. It doesn't sound too serious then. Under other circumstances I'd suggest deleting everything under /var/db/portsnap/, but that allows the possibility of the portsnap MITM attack, which I don't think has been fixed yet.