Bugzilla Bug 254011

('Filesize does not match recorded size', 3056503, 3056790)
!!! Fetched file: install_flash_player_9.tar.gz VERIFY FAILED!
!!! Reason: Filesize does not match recorded size
!!! Got:      3056503
!!! Expected: 3056790
Refetching... File renamed to
'/usr/portage/distfiles/install_flash_player_9.tar.gz._checksum_failure_.xH4sWE'

!!! Couldn't download 'install_flash_player_9.tar.gz'. Aborting.
 * Fetch failed for 'net-www/netscape-flash-9.0.151.0', Log file:
 *  '/var/tmp/portage/net-www/netscape-flash-9.0.151.0/temp/build.log'


Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Try to emerge net-www/netscape-flash-9.0.151.0
2. It will fail, nothing else to do

Actual Results:  
2009-01-06 15:34:47 (274 KB/s) -
`/usr/portage/distfiles/install_flash_player_9.tar.gz' saved [3056503/3056503]

('Filesize does not match recorded size', 3056503, 3056790)
!!! Fetched file: install_flash_player_9.tar.gz VERIFY FAILED!
!!! Reason: Filesize does not match recorded size
!!! Got:      3056503
!!! Expected: 3056790
Refetching... File renamed to
'/usr/portage/distfiles/install_flash_player_9.tar.gz._checksum_failure_.xH4sWE'

!!! Couldn't download 'install_flash_player_9.tar.gz'. Aborting.
 * Fetch failed for 'net-www/netscape-flash-9.0.151.0', Log file:
 *  '/var/tmp/portage/net-www/netscape-flash-9.0.151.0/temp/build.log'


Expected Results:  
Expected to unarchive and copy to /opt like the last version did.

Version 10 is so broke I had to mask it to prevent it from being installed. 
Please fix version 9 so I can see the awesome flash movies.

*** Bug 254012 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 254015 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 254020 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 254018 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Confirmed.

Assigning to maintainer, looks like upstream may have changed the file again. 

(In reply to comment #4)
> *** Bug 254018 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
> 

How in the world did my bug replicate itself 5 times?

Thanks for the heads-up on this.  I've upgraded the package and manifest
accordingly.  Say hello to netscape-flash-9.0.152.0, now with marginally less
security holes!

<hate>If only they would remove the "no mirroring" clause from their license, I
could store a copy with a proper filename and we wouldn't keep running into
this bug.</hate>

By the way, what about 10 is broken?  Have you reported it to adobe
(http://bugs.adobe.com/flashplayer/), or on another bug here?  Who knows how
much longer they'll be keeping version 9 up-to-date.

(In reply to comment #7)
> Thanks for the heads-up on this.  I've upgraded the package and manifest
> accordingly.  Say hello to netscape-flash-9.0.152.0, now with marginally less
> security holes!
> 
> <hate>If only they would remove the "no mirroring" clause from their license, I
> could store a copy with a proper filename and we wouldn't keep running into
> this bug.</hate>
> 
> By the way, what about 10 is broken?  Have you reported it to adobe
> (http://bugs.adobe.com/flashplayer/), or on another bug here?  Who knows how
> much longer they'll be keeping version 9 up-to-date.
> 

I can't be sure exactly what is broken, all I know is that Firefox core dumps
whenever I visit a flash enabled site.  The crash shows an error with
libgconf-2 stated as the cause.  Not to mention 10 is still Alpha in portage
and I don't like Alpha anything on my system.

(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > By the way, what about 10 is broken?  Have you reported it to adobe
> > (http://bugs.adobe.com/flashplayer/), or on another bug here?  Who knows how
> > much longer they'll be keeping version 9 up-to-date.
> 
> I can't be sure exactly what is broken, all I know is that Firefox core dumps
> whenever I visit a flash enabled site.  The crash shows an error with
> libgconf-2 stated as the cause.

libgconf?  Interesting.  What version of gnome-base/gconf do you have
installed?  Have you tried reinstalling gconf?  What error exactly do you get?

> Not to mention 10 is still Alpha in portage
> and I don't like Alpha anything on my system.

This is untrue.  There are currently two different ebuilds for version 10:

  net-www/netscape-flash-10.0.15.3
    This is arch-stable on both x86 and amd64.  It is production code actually
released by Adobe.  They are only actually keeping version 9 around for "old
operating systems".  See http://www.adobe.com/go/kb406791 for details.

  net-www/netscape-flash-10.0.21.1_alpha
    This is only available on ~amd64.  It is the second alpha release by Adobe
which provides the native 64-bit plugin only (and not the 32-bit plugin). 
Reports have been mostly good as to its stability (as good as can be expected
for flash player, honestly), but it won't actually go arch-stable in portage
until it is actually released by adobe and has a matching 32-bit version so I
can do a true multilib install.

It's probably best to embrace the future - flash-10 is here and not going away.
 I would personally prefer that flash went away entirely, but that's not very
likely :)