| Summary: | ghostscript: do_fetch failed due to checksums mismatch | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Build System, Metadata & Runtime] OE-Core | Reporter: | Robert Yang <liezhi.yang> |
| Component: | core | Assignee: | Robert Yang <liezhi.yang> |
| Status: | RESOLVED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | Medium | CC: | meta.mr.watcher, meta.watcher, richard.purdie, sgw |
| Version: | 1.5 | ||
| Target Milestone: | 1.5 M1 | ||
| Hardware: | x86 | ||
| OS: | Multiple | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| OS type for building Yocto: | --- | Type of Regression: | --- |
| Verified: | Documentation change: | --- | |
|
Description
Robert Yang
2013-04-29 06:10:27 UTC
The more important question is why did the checksum change? That's the whole purpose of having these. If no update occurred then the the upstream tarball might be corrupted or changed, can you verify against the tarball on the Autobuilder? (In reply to comment #1) > The more important question is why did the checksum change? That's the > whole purpose of having these. If no update occurred then the the upstream > tarball might be corrupted or changed, can you verify against the tarball on > the Autobuilder? (In reply to comment #1) > The more important question is why did the checksum change? That's the > whole purpose of having these. If no update occurred then the the upstream > tarball might be corrupted or changed, can you verify against the tarball on > the Autobuilder? Thanks for the hints, yes, I'm also curious about this, I will check it when I arrive at the office on Thursday. (In reply to comment #1) > The more important question is why did the checksum change? That's the > whole purpose of having these. If no update occurred then the the upstream > tarball might be corrupted or changed, can you verify against the tarball on > the Autobuilder? It seems that this is caused by China's GFW, I also noticed this error on other machines (not the auto builder), but it showed me another checksum, not the one in the .bb file or the one that had show before, so I will close this bug. |