Hi Ryan, On Jan 1, 2008, at 12:56 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Jan 1, 2008, at 11:09, jberry@macports.org wrote:
Revision: 32441 http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports/changeset/32441 Author: jberry@macports.org Date: 2008-01-01 09:09:21 -0800 (Tue, 01 Jan 2008)
Log Message: ----------- If checksum is mismatched, and in verbose mode, present a corrected pre-fabricated checksum statement to make it easy to update a port.
That does, of course, make it easier for people to just blindly copy and paste, rather than thinking about whether they should be changing the portfile checksum at all.
Yes, I did consider this argument for why it might not be a good idea, but quickly came to the conclusion that taking away the drudge work will hopefully give people _more_ time to consider some of those other factors. I don't believe that this is a case where we're putting a hair-trigger on a gun, or something; we're making the fife of a maintainer easier. I don't think this will make it more or less likely that someone will ignore the root cause behind a bad checksum. Besides, I think 99% of the time spent in updating checksums is for updated versions, rather than files which miraculously change in the night. Once again, hopefully this will make it more likely that maintainers will consider verifying the checksum against a signed version from the distro. James
http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports/wiki/ FAQ#IgetError:checksummd5sha1rmd160mismatchforport.WhatcanIdoaboutit