From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 24 22:12:31 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B225F16A400; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:12:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rik@inse.ru) Received: from mail.inse.ru (inse.ru [144.206.128.1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73E7A13C441; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:12:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rik@inse.ru) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (www.inse.ru [144.206.128.1]) by mail.inse.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C4C833C4E; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:54:43 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <45B7D5BD.4070400@inse.ru> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:55:09 +0300 From: Roman Kurakin User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061219) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pav@FreeBSD.org References: <1169641247.96993.10.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> In-Reply-To: <1169641247.96993.10.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rik@FreeBSD.org, ports@freebsd.org, bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/102499: lftp asc file checksum mismatch X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:12:31 -0000 I am crossposting this to both bugs@ and ports@ so all who will join this discussion keep this in mind if you'll reply. Pav Lucistnik wrote: > So, what's the status on this one? My opinion is that the whole ticket > is bogus and should be closed. > No, it shouldn't. Sorry I didn't have enough time to investigate the problem further, but it is a real pain for port distribution. IIRC the point I've reached was: all software works correctly. All files correct but port can't be build. The reason that default behaviors are not the same on all levels and conversion of new line from single char to double could occur. The solution is to request text file as binary than all layers will bypass it without modifications or to convert newline explicitly for all text files before computation of checksum to the one default value (I guess to single-char variant). So the problem not in the port itself but in the set of conditions. And probably this bug report should be reopened with other description. rik