Holly has replied for me. xDD 2005/9/14, Holly Bostick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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 > >
-- Saludos, Rafael Fernández López. "A la vista de suficientes ojos todos los errores resultan evidentes" - Linus Torvalds -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
