Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 23:29:18 +0300 From: Eitan Adler <eitanadlerlist@gmail.com> To: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Portsnap metadata is correctly signed, but contains at least one line which appears bogus. Message-ID: <AANLkTikZBaL7MdUBwuZzY3zd-Z8ZJ-NvrDMJctqwsShL@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20100423001025.3138d003@gumby.homeunix.com> References: <h2ga0777e081004220932x8d44a02ch3c68612b1360a5bd@mail.gmail.com> <20100423001025.3138d003@gumby.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Woops - I missed this email
> Eitan Adler <eitanadlerlist@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've been getting the following message a lot lately.
>>
>> Portsnap metadata is correctly signed, but contains
>> at least one line which appears bogus.
>>
I'm still getting this error even after a complete removal of /var/db/ports=
nap
> If the metadata is correctly signed then it sounds like it should be a
> server-side problem. OTOH =C2=A0no-one else is mentioning it, are you
> running portsnap from a reasonably recent release?
Yeah - I'm running from 8-RELEASE
>
> It might be instructive to edit portsnap, look for the places where
> fetch_metadata_freakout is called and have it make a copy of the
> offending file.
I added some echo lines to help
if grep -qvE "^[0-9A-Z.]+\|[0-9a-f]{64}$" tINDEX.new; then
fetch_metadata_freakout
return 1
fi
appears to be the part which goes nuts.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTikZBaL7MdUBwuZzY3zd-Z8ZJ-NvrDMJctqwsShL>