| Summary: | Failed to emerge www-plugins/adobe-flash-9.0.262.0 - File Size Mismatch | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Jeff Singleton <gvibe06> |
| Component: | New packages | Assignee: | Jim Ramsay (lack) (RETIRED) <lack> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | desktop-misc, rose |
| Priority: | High | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | AMD64 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
*** 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 :) So how do I emerge adobe-flash 9? adobe-flash 10 is unacceptable. However, if I try to downgrade to adobe-flash 9, all I get is this fetch error. Ah yes, this happens from time to time when Adobe bumps their flash-9 release -> They do not provide a tarball with a version number (and we are legally prohibited from mirroring this with a properly named tarball), so the result of a bump before I catch it is that the fetch breaks! Thanks for the report, and I have just fixed it, by bumping flash-9 to www-plugins/adobe-flash-9.0.277.0 *** Bug 324311 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** |
('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.