Fix the md5 sum for this port's distfile. I've compared the old and new tarballs, and the only difference seems to be the definition files (which are binary, so I can't really compare them) This worries me slightly because I suspect they periodically rebuild the tarball with new definition files. Is there a solution to a problem like this? Fix: Apply patch below.
Hi, On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 03:15:38PM +0000, Tim Bishop wrote: > > >Number: 59082 > >Category: ports > >Synopsis: Fix port: security/f-prot > >Confidential: no > >Severity: non-critical > >Priority: low > >Responsible: freebsd-ports-bugs > >State: open > >Quarter: > >Keywords: > >Date-Required: > >Class: maintainer-update > >Submitter-Id: current-users > >Arrival-Date: Sun Nov 09 07:20:20 PST 2003 > >Closed-Date: > >Last-Modified: > >Originator: Tim Bishop > >Release: FreeBSD 4.9-PRERELEASE i386 > >Organization: > >Environment: > System: FreeBSD pendennis.ukc.ac.uk 4.9-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 4.9-PRERELEASE #5: Wed Sep 17 15:50:07 BST 2003 tdb@pendennis.ukc.ac.uk:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/PENDENNIS i386 > > >Description: > Fix the md5 sum for this port's distfile. I've compared the > old and new tarballs, and the only difference seems to be > the definition files (which are binary, so I can't really > compare them) > > This worries me slightly because I suspect they periodically > rebuild the tarball with new definition files. Is there a > solution to a problem like this? Did you ask software developers about it ? They should explain why they do such things with software. -Kirill
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 04:24:42PM +0100, Kirill Ponomarew wrote: > > >Description: > > Fix the md5 sum for this port's distfile. I've compared the > > old and new tarballs, and the only difference seems to be > > the definition files (which are binary, so I can't really > > compare them) > > > > This worries me slightly because I suspect they periodically > > rebuild the tarball with new definition files. Is there a > > solution to a problem like this? > > Did you ask software developers about it ? They should explain > why they do such things with software. I am in the process of doing so. In the short term, could this PR be comitted so that the port at least works for now? Cheers, Tim. -- Tim Bishop http://www.bishnet.net/tim PGP Key: 0x5AE7D984
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 04:24:42PM +0100, Kirill Ponomarew wrote: > > This worries me slightly because I suspect they periodically > > rebuild the tarball with new definition files. Is there a > > solution to a problem like this? > > Did you ask software developers about it ? They should explain > why they do such things with software. They admitted it was just to update the virus definitions (this is a virus checker). Can we commit this PR now? -- Tim Bishop http://www.bishnet.net/tim PGP Key: 0x5AE7D984
State Changed From-To: open->closed Checksum wasn't changed, try to build the port.