Re: port -v checksum
On Feb 7, 2017, at 02:07, Joshua Root wrote: > On 2017-2-7 08:11 , John Patrick wrote: >> should 'port -v checksum' check all checksum's listed? >> >> just wondering as about to upgrade a port version and it complained >> about the rmd160, I updated rmd160 with the new checksum but not the >> sha512 >> >> if their an option to force it to check all checksum's listed to I >> know the Portfile is valid for the new version? > > 'port checksum' should definitely always check all the checksums listed in > the Portfile and fail if any of them don't match those of the distfile. It > will additionally compute rmd160 and sha256 if those are not listed when it > fails, so you can easily add them. > > As Ryan mentioned, sha512 is not currently supported. If port doesn't > complain when you use it, it probably should. Yes, there are a couple ports that already have sha512 checksums listed -- apache-ant and jumpcut -- but MacPorts does not check them.
Re: port -v checksum
Cheers Josh and Ryan, that exactly covered what I was after. I added sah512 incorrectly assuming it was supported, and so being used. Will look into this behaviour more tonight and raise a ticket with what I find regarding it. John On 7 February 2017 at 08:07, Joshua Root wrote: > On 2017-2-7 08:11 , John Patrick wrote: >> >> should 'port -v checksum' check all checksum's listed? >> >> just wondering as about to upgrade a port version and it complained >> about the rmd160, I updated rmd160 with the new checksum but not the >> sha512 >> >> if their an option to force it to check all checksum's listed to I >> know the Portfile is valid for the new version? > > > 'port checksum' should definitely always check all the checksums listed in > the Portfile and fail if any of them don't match those of the distfile. It > will additionally compute rmd160 and sha256 if those are not listed when it > fails, so you can easily add them. > > As Ryan mentioned, sha512 is not currently supported. If port doesn't > complain when you use it, it probably should. > > If this doesn't address your questions, please describe in more detail > exactly what you did, what happened, and what you think should have happened > instead. > > - Josh
Re: port -v checksum
On 2017-2-7 08:11 , John Patrick wrote: should 'port -v checksum' check all checksum's listed? just wondering as about to upgrade a port version and it complained about the rmd160, I updated rmd160 with the new checksum but not the sha512 if their an option to force it to check all checksum's listed to I know the Portfile is valid for the new version? 'port checksum' should definitely always check all the checksums listed in the Portfile and fail if any of them don't match those of the distfile. It will additionally compute rmd160 and sha256 if those are not listed when it fails, so you can easily add them. As Ryan mentioned, sha512 is not currently supported. If port doesn't complain when you use it, it probably should. If this doesn't address your questions, please describe in more detail exactly what you did, what happened, and what you think should have happened instead. - Josh
Re: port -v checksum
On Feb 6, 2017, at 15:11, John Patrick wrote: > should 'port -v checksum' check all checksum's listed? > > just wondering as about to upgrade a port version and it complained > about the rmd160, I updated rmd160 with the new checksum but not the > sha512 > > if their an option to force it to check all checksum's listed to I > know the Portfile is valid for the new version? "port checksum" checks all checksum types MacPorts knows about. It knows about md5 sha1 rmd160 sha256. It does not know about sha512.
port -v checksum
should 'port -v checksum' check all checksum's listed? just wondering as about to upgrade a port version and it complained about the rmd160, I updated rmd160 with the new checksum but not the sha512 if their an option to force it to check all checksum's listed to I know the Portfile is valid for the new version? Cheers, John
