Michael Crute schreef: > On 9/14/05, Holly Bostick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> There's a bug on b.g.o about it. It looks like something wrong with >> the manifest (bad copy and paste or something; or in any case, the >> md5 is the same as all the others when it's not supposed to be or >> vice versa). >> > > > Not to state the obvious, but here goes. Why not just regenerate the > digest? If the package is OK and its just a messed up Manifest file > then you should be able to use ebuild to generate a new digest and > all is happy, right? At least that's how I understand things to work. > -Mike >
Yes, 'theoretically' one could, but it's my policy not to do that for 'real' Portage packages (as opposed to overlay packages, where you of course have to digest manually). It would mean that I would have to investigate whether the package was right (and the digest wrong), or the digest was right (and the package wrong). I could, but that's what Portage (or in any case the herd responsible for these packages) is supposed to do for me, so if it gets broke in a way such as this, I let Portage get itself fixed by the experts. Yes, sometimes I do claim 'pure user' privilege. Certainly where the ATI drivers are involved. I do *not* want to get mixed up in development or development management issues there. Can you imagine the ridicule if I re-digested the package myself, it didn't work, and then I submitted a bug? I'd rather not :) . <shudder> Holly -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
