Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 217799 - net-www/netscape-flash ( =0.9.48.*) fails with bad checksum
Summary: net-www/netscape-flash ( =0.9.48.*) fails with bad checksum
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Current packages (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High normal (vote)
Assignee: Jim Ramsay (lack) (RETIRED)
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2008-04-15 13:24 UTC by brankob
Modified: 2008-04-15 19:06 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments
emerge --info (em_info.txt,4.40 KB, text/plain)
2008-04-15 13:25 UTC, brankob
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description brankob 2008-04-15 13:24:57 UTC
It fails with:

* checking install_flash_player_9_linux.tar.gz ;-) ...                                                                                                [ !! ]

!!! Digest verification failed:
!!! /usr/portage/distfiles/install_flash_player_9_linux.tar.gz
!!! Reason: Filesize does not match recorded size

After recomputing the checksum with ebuild ... digest it completes fine, but still this shouldn't happen. 

I understand that this is due to Adobe changing the file without changing its name, but something should be done, especially since this version is online for some time. Maybe checkum update with the new file in portage tree is in order ?

I have attache emerge --info ...









Reproducible: Always
Comment 1 brankob 2008-04-15 13:25:27 UTC
Created attachment 149802 [details]
emerge --info
Comment 2 Jim Ramsay (lack) (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2008-04-15 17:33:12 UTC
Yes.  This version should not ever be used, and should have been in p.mask or removed.  The 9.0.48.0-r1 would have still worked.  For more details on why the checksum on the .tar.gz broke, see bug 210616.

I have now removed both 9.0.48.0 ebuilds from the tree altogether, since that version suffers from multiple security vulnerablities and has been replaced with newer versions.
Comment 3 brankob 2008-04-15 19:06:06 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> Yes.  This version should not ever be used, and should have been in p.mask or
> removed.  The 9.0.48.0-r1 would have still worked.  For more details on why the
> checksum on the .tar.gz broke, see bug 210616.
> 
> I have now removed both 9.0.48.0 ebuilds from the tree altogether, since that
> version suffers from multiple security vulnerablities and has been replaced
> with newer versions.
> 

That fixed it, thanks. Strangely enough, I had 9.0.48.0-r1 in my packages.mask, so this means that some time ago it didn't work for me and I went for plain 48.0 instead...