Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 20:42:15 -0400
From: Dubiousjim <dubiousjim@gmail.com>
To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org
Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] abuildhelper question
Message-ID: <20130704004215.GI1550@zen>
Mail-Followup-To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org
References: <20130703142453.GF1550@zen>
 <20130703195422.6cba9eab@ncopa-laptop.res.nor.wtbts.net>
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130703195422.6cba9eab@ncopa-laptop.res.nor.wtbts.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 07:54:22PM +0200, Natanael Copa wrote:
> yes, it is because the tarball is generated on the fly. I upgraded cgit
> not too long ago and something has changed in the way the tarball is
> generated so the checksum no longer match.
> 
> same thing applies to all packages that has on-the-fly generated
> tarballs from git.a.o/cgit (acf-*)
> 
> option 1:
> we update the checksums on all affected aports (not funny because it
> affects all stable apkbuilds). This could be done slowly, when we bump
> into issue.
> 
> option 2:
> we roll back cgit (and try backport the sec fixes. This was strongly
> not recommended by cgit maintainer) or try fix it so it behaves
> identical as previous.
> 
> option 3:
> we add a git hook that will generate a tarball and store it
> in /archives/$package/ when new tags are found. (we already do this for
> apk-tools)

Good to know about this. Perhaps you announced it before, but I hadn't
noticed it until now. Yeah, that's messy. A quick scan looks like 49
acf-* packages and 22 others are subject to this.

-- 
Dubiousjim
dubiousjim@gmail.com


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---