!!! Fetched file: binutils-2.21.1-patches-1.4.tar.bz2 VERIFY FAILED! !!! Reason: Failed on RMD160 verification !!! Got: c9090ab5b18992019f61f28b43ee45d112b8944f !!! Expected: 227b0c5bd2c4b2917961c18116d1fd2310227eda Happens to other people on #gentoo as well, so not a local download problem. Also, binutils-2.21.1-r1.ebuild has been changed to reference PATCHVER="1.4" WITHOUT GETTING A VERSION BUMP - I'd have expected such a change to warrant a binutils-2.21.1-r2.ebuild Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. emerge --sync 2. emerge binutils Actual Results: !!! Fetched file: binutils-2.21.1-patches-1.4.tar.bz2 VERIFY FAILED! !!! Reason: Failed on RMD160 verification !!! Got: c9090ab5b18992019f61f28b43ee45d112b8944f !!! Expected: 227b0c5bd2c4b2917961c18116d1fd2310227eda Expected Results: Correct build of binutils Without manual workarounds, this blocks normal emerges on an affected system.
The diff between my local version of binutils-2.21.1-patches-1.3.tar.bz2 and the currently mirrored binutils-2.21.1-patches-1.4.tar.bz2 with the "wrong" RMD160 hash of c9090ab5b18992019f61f28b43ee45d112b8944f looks innocuous enough TO ME: --- 1.3/patch/40_all_binutils-2.21.1-s390x-PIC.patch 1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 +++ 1.4/patch/40_all_binutils-2.21.1-s390x-PIC.patch 2011-12-05 08:10:26.000000000 +0100 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +https://bugs.gentoo.org/391431 +http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2011-07/msg00197.html + +building libiberty on s390x results in truncation errors while linking + +--- a/libiberty/configure ++++ b/libiberty/configure +@@ -4891,6 +4891,7 @@ + *-fpic* ) PICFLAG=-fpic ;; + * ) PICFLAG=-fPIC ;; + esac ;; ++ s390x*-*-*) PICFLAG=-fPIC ;; + s390*-*-*) PICFLAG=-fpic ;; + sh*-*-*) PICFLAG=-fPIC ;; + esac diff -urN 1.3/patch/README.history 1.4/patch/README.history --- 1.3/patch/README.history 2011-10-17 01:24:31.000000000 +0200 +++ 1.4/patch/README.history 2011-12-05 08:10:26.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,3 +1,6 @@ +1.4 05 Dec 2011 + + 40_all_binutils-2.22-s390x-PIC.patch + 1.3 16 Oct 2011 + 16_all_mips-link-segv-pr12845.patch I'll probably go ahead and locally update the Manifest to match new patch package, but USE AT YOUR OWN RISK!
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 393233 ***