QT4 checksum fails

qsecofr

qsecofr

Hi,

I'm having a tough time with updating qt4 ports. The SHA256 checksum fails on distfile qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.1.tar.gz. I did a csup to refresh sources & ports tree using tag RELENG_8_1 just a couple of days ago. Any chance there's been a change to any of the qt4 ports in the last couple days, requiring another csup?

If not, which repository has a good version of this file?

And any recommendations for setting MASTER_SITES variable in /etc/make.conf for qt4 project? Fetching via portmaster encounters a lot of "permanently moved" errors and seems to get stuck in a loop. I had to fetch manually before discovering the checksum failed.

Thanks
 
qsecofr said:
I did a csup to refresh sources & ports tree using tag RELENG_8_1 just a couple of days ago.
Click to expand...

There's only 1 tag for the ports tree, and that's tag=. (the . is the tag). Using anything else will cause problems with the ports tree.

A simpler, easier, cleaner method, is to use portsnap() instead.

The first time you run it like so:
# portsnap fetch extract

And everytime afterward, like so:
# portsnap fetch update
 
Yes, you're right, I've got ports tag=. while source is RELENG_8_1. I meant to convey that I'm running FreeBSD8.1. I should've been more specific. I'll try portsnap and then re-fetch after the fastest site install.
 
If you still get checksum errors the file in /usr/ports/distfiles/ might be corrupt. Just remove it and the port will automatically download it again.
 
Yes, I had done a few manual fetches from different repositories. Each fetch produced the same SHA256 fingerprint. But portmaster had complained that it didn't match the QT4 signature. It led me to wonder if my ports tree was out-of-synch with the current version of the distfile I had fetched. It seemed unlikely since I had refreshed the ports tree only a couple days prior with csup. The need to manually fetch the file in the first place, and that it's a sort of meta-port only added to that confusion. In the end it might be that either the files or the transfer were corrupted. Thanks to all. I think I've got this solved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top