Opened 13 months ago
Closed 12 months ago
#68538 closed defect (fixed)
ld64-97 @97.17_9: checksum mismatch
Reported by: | edolnx (Carl Perry) | Owned by: | jeremyhu (Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia) |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | Normal | Milestone: | |
Component: | ports | Version: | |
Keywords: | haspatch | Cc: | cooljeanius (Eric Gallager) |
Port: | ld64 ld64-97 |
Description
The code from the Apple open source team has moved to GitHub and the packages autogenerated there have different checksums due to the ld64 prefix being added to the code subdirectory. I've included a patched Postfile which has the updated checksums and created a symlink for the expected directory name. The package will now build on a Power Mac G5 running 10.4.11
Attachments (1)
Change History (10)
Changed 13 months ago by edolnx (Carl Perry)
Attachment: | devel-ld64-Portfile.patch added |
---|
comment:1 Changed 13 months ago by ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)
This is a stealth update and would have to be handled as such.
Are the contents of the new archive different from the old one, other than the enclosing directory name? I assume not. If that's correct, then increasing the revision is not appropriate.
See also https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/pull/18956.
comment:2 Changed 13 months ago by ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)
Summary: | ld64 97 Fails to download and unpack → ld64-97 @97.17_9: checksum mismatch |
---|
Even if the contents of the archive were different and a revision increase were warranted, you've increased the revision of ld64 instead of the revision of ld64-97.
You've only updated the checksums for ld64-97. What about the other subports of this port? Probably they need the same fix.
comment:3 Changed 13 months ago by edolnx (Carl Perry)
I have not found a way of checking the contents of the current archive vs the old archive since there does not appear to be a way to download the old archive that matches the original checksums. The contents seem to be somewhat different, as many of the patches that are applied exited with a "patch already applied" notice but no error. This may be normal, as I don't know how it worked previously. I did spend a good amount of time looking for an source of checksums for the new archives, but they do not seem to be a "release" from Github so there are no documented checksums available from GitHub or Apple.
As for the stealth update, I was unaware of this.
I also have no way to check or test the other versions since I only have an older Mac which is incapable of compiling any of the newer versions.
I found these issues while also trying to correct the apple-gcc42 port, and there was a similar bug for that with a similar fix I attached: #67631 - I'm very new to this project so I figured a bug report with a small patch may be the best way forward since I'm sure these ports are not exactly in high demand. If I'm causing more work than they are worth, my apologies.
comment:4 Changed 13 months ago by jmroot (Joshua Root)
The file mirrored at https://distfiles.macports.org/ld64/ appears to match the checksums currently in the port.
comment:5 Changed 13 months ago by jmroot (Joshua Root)
No differences between the old and new tarballs except the enclosing directory name. The reason why ld64-97-standalone-libunwind-headers.patch
doesn't also have a checksum mismatch is that the upstream location 404s, so the mirrored copy is always used.
comment:6 Changed 13 months ago by jmroot (Joshua Root)
Owner: | set to jeremyhu |
---|---|
Status: | new → assigned |
comment:7 Changed 13 months ago by cooljeanius (Eric Gallager)
Cc: | cooljeanius added |
---|
comment:9 Changed 12 months ago by catap (Kirill A. Korinsky)
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | assigned → closed |
Portfile patch which includes new checksum hashes and directory name fix