Bug 59082

Summary: Fix port: security/f-prot
Product: Ports & Packages Reporter: Tim Bishop <tdb>
Component: Individual Port(s)Assignee: freebsd-ports-bugs (Nobody) <ports-bugs>
Status: Closed FIXED    
Severity: Affects Only Me CC: tdb
Priority: Normal    
Version: Latest   
Hardware: Any   
OS: Any   
Attachments:
Description Flags
f-prot-4.2.0-md5fix.diff none

Description Tim Bishop freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2003-11-09 15:20:20 UTC 
	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.
Comment 1 Kirill Ponomarev freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2003-11-09 15:24:42 UTC 
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
Comment 2 Tim Bishop freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2003-11-10 10:29:57 UTC 
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
Comment 3 Tim Bishop freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2003-11-13 20:46:49 UTC 
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
Comment 4 Kirill Ponomarev freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2003-11-17 10:22:53 UTC 
State Changed
From-To: open->closed

Checksum wasn't changed, try to build the port.