#20179: Stellarium 0.10.2 download fails (mirrors available) ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------- Reporter: arno+macports@… | Owner: raimue@… Type: defect | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: 1.7.1 Keywords: sourceforge mirror hash | Port: stellarium ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------- Changes (by macsforever2000@…): * owner: macports-tickets@… => raimue@… Old description:

The download source for Stellarium is currently failing at Sourceforge. This seems to be a Sourceforge problem as I get the same result while trying to download via the web interface, but other mirrors are available. The two that I have located however, have different hashes compared to what is listed in the Portfile.

http://www.sfr-fresh.com/unix/privat/stellarium-0.10.2.tar.gz

http://gd.tuwien.ac.at/opsys/linux/gentoo/distfiles/stellarium-0.10.2.tar.gz

Both result with:

MD5 c544fff9e75e9317055075b658ae5924

SHA1 aa24cbb8d4a911121108df67483b4c753402928e

RMD160 ea88f1ba4c29a3a9087e5ca89a16258e59d12e72

while the Portfile contains

MD5 fc0d4ae5803e4ccd3b85594ff442859f

SHA1 2a9030efc448f883675cd69b1b51062ff130134f

RMD160 b557f9ca94ddea0464e02dd9af50de93d60d8cda

However, I haven't been able to find an official hash listing to compare with.

Also, the extract.suffix listed in the Portfile would seem to more appropriately be the standard tar.gz rather than tgz.

Without an "official" hash, I'm not sure whether updating the Portfile is appropriate or not.

New description: The download source for Stellarium is currently failing at Sourceforge. This seems to be a Sourceforge problem as I get the same result while trying to download via the web interface, but other mirrors are available. The two that I have located however, have different hashes compared to what is listed in the Portfile. [http://www.sfr-fresh.com/unix/privat/stellarium-0.10.2.tar.gz] [http://gd.tuwien.ac.at/opsys/linux/gentoo/distfiles/stellarium-0.10.2.tar.gz] Both result with: {{{ MD5 c544fff9e75e9317055075b658ae5924 SHA1 aa24cbb8d4a911121108df67483b4c753402928e RMD160 ea88f1ba4c29a3a9087e5ca89a16258e59d12e72 }}} while the Portfile contains {{{ MD5 fc0d4ae5803e4ccd3b85594ff442859f SHA1 2a9030efc448f883675cd69b1b51062ff130134f RMD160 b557f9ca94ddea0464e02dd9af50de93d60d8cda }}} However, I haven't been able to find an official hash listing to compare with. Also, the extract.suffix listed in the Portfile would seem to more appropriately be the standard tar.gz rather than tgz. Without an "official" hash, I'm not sure whether updating the Portfile is appropriate or not. -- -- Ticket URL: <http://trac.macports.org/ticket/20179#comment:1> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for Mac OS