Bug 408901

Summary:	net-proxy/http-replicator-3.0-r2 does not invalidate cached file after contents changed
Product:	Gentoo Linux	Reporter:	Robin Bankhead <gentoo>
Component:	Current packages	Assignee:	Gentoo Network Proxy Developers (OBSOLETE) <net-proxy+disabled>
Status:	RESOLVED INVALID
Severity:	normal	CC:	bkohler
Priority:	Normal
Version:	unspecified
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Package list:		Runtime testing required:	---

Description Robin Bankhead 2012-03-19 18:38:02 UTC

When running "emerge -f adobe-flash" on ~x86 client, via http-replicator on ~amd64 LAN host:

Saving to: `/usr/portage/distfiles/adobe-flash-11.1.102.63.i386.tar.gz'

100%[======================================>] 6,747,720   11.1M/s   in 0.6s

2012-03-19 18:10:57 (11.1 MB/s) - `/usr/portage/distfiles/adobe-flash-11.1.102.63.i386.tar.gz' saved [6747720/6747720]

!!! Fetched file: adobe-flash-11.1.102.63.i386.tar.gz VERIFY FAILED!
!!! Reason: Filesize does not match recorded size
!!! Got:      6747720
!!! Expected: 6746733
Refetching... File renamed to '/usr/portage/distfiles/adobe-flash-11.1.102.63.i386.tar.gz._checksum_failure_.7CKYkV'

File is not saved in http-replicator's cache.  When running

http_proxy="" emerge -f adobe-flash

...fetch and verification completes successfully.

Comment 1 Ben Kohler gentoo-dev

2012-03-19 18:48:28 UTC

http-replicator uses the original upstream filename and not the "->" target name that is used in distfiles.  This creates a problem when upstream bumps the version but still uses the original tarball name.  Look for a file at /var/cache/http-replicator/install_flash_player_11_linux.i386.tar.gz or similar, and remove it.

Comment 2 Robin Bankhead 2012-03-19 19:43:50 UTC

Thanks, there was indeed and with it gone, the fetch occurs fine.

That is, I must say, an obscure and very infuriating gotcha. Bad Adobe!

Comment 3 Jeroen Roovers (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2012-03-20 15:05:21 UTC

I don't think this is a problem with http-replicator (since it would strive to not download the same file twice, and would need to still retrieve a file twice to make sure the contents haven't changed, which kind of goes against its purpose as a caching proxy).