Package Details: svtplay-dl 4.12-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/svtplay-dl.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: svtplay-dl
Description: Media downloader for play sites (e.g. SVT Play)
Upstream URL: https://github.com/spaam/svtplay-dl
Licenses: MIT
Submitter: swearchnick
Maintainer: swearchnick
Last Packager: swearchnick
Votes: 13
Popularity: 0.052126
First Submitted: 2014-04-27 08:43 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2022-05-14 07:11 (UTC)

Latest Comments

styrsven commented on 2021-05-15 05:24 (UTC)

Once again: ==> Making package: svtplay-dl 3.8-1 (Sat May 15 07:21:44 2021) ==> Retrieving sources... -> Found svtplay-dl-3.8.tar.gz ==> Validating source files with sha256sums... svtplay-dl-3.8.tar.gz ... FAILED ==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check! error downloading sources: svtplay-dl

niclasc commented on 2021-04-21 10:44 (UTC)

Validating source files with sha256sums... svtplay-dl-3.6.tar.gz ... FAILED ==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check! error downloading sources: svtplay-dl

I did a cleanbuild

swearchnick commented on 2021-04-15 04:46 (UTC)

@sQVe Thank you for the suggestion, it is now implemented. (Also updated to version 3.5).

sQVe commented on 2021-04-14 06:53 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for maintaining this package. It seems like the upstream isn't making it very easy for you...

I'd greatly appreciate it if you could make the source unique. It currently saved it as 3.4.tar.gz which is problematic as it may already exist (other packages creating it etc). Could you possibly change the source to:

source=("${pkgname}-${pkgver}.tar.gz::https://github.com/spaam/svtplay-dl/archive/$pkgver.tar.gz)

This would make it unique for this package. See https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD#Sources for more details.

Thanks!

bezerk commented on 2021-03-12 15:01 (UTC)

Yeah, that's no good!! But on the other hand for me personally at least mostly it's svtplay-dl that fails checksums.

swearchnick commented on 2021-03-12 11:50 (UTC)

@bezerk Thank you, should be ok now (again). Starting to get annoyed by this..... From some time ago upstream changes the source file after release.

bezerk commented on 2021-03-12 10:05 (UTC)

WHEN DOING A CLEANBUILD: ==> Validating source files with sha256sums... 3.2.tar.gz ... FAILED ==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check!

$ grep sum PKGBUILD && sha256sum *.gz sha256sums=('41476703bcd3ba77202dffb534673c130fc811c6a1b6482354c8c1667baebea7') d8f4653ca85745b6ef399ec54d4808b3496160b42f19a6a25f7e00d4e271523b 3.2.tar.gz

bezerk commented on 2021-02-25 10:14 (UTC)

Package 3.1 works as checksum indicated by PKGBUILD (v3.1) is the same as 3.1.tar.gz's. Thanks!

swearchnick commented on 2021-02-25 05:40 (UTC)

@bezerk It builds just fine, cannot reproduce. Just make a clean build.

bezerk commented on 2021-02-24 17:50 (UTC)

==> Making package: svtplay-dl 3.0-2 (ons 24 feb 2021 18:48:46) ==> Retrieving sources... -> Found 3.0.tar.gz ==> Validating source files with sha256sums... 3.0.tar.gz ... FAILED ==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check!

PKGBUILD: sha256sums=('c864473e69bc7db5f68c1393cbbb024ba66b8d92e2a5494e50e78d46d80bae8f') WHILE $ sha256sum .cache/yay/svtplay-dl/3.0.tar.gz 6770538cb53644d54bd202c719b7af8857c13a77188f1ed0b2b491d34c70c493

swearchnick commented on 2021-02-22 05:50 (UTC)

@Mkornby Thank you, updated.

Mkornby commented on 2021-02-21 15:57 (UTC)

3.0-1 does not pass the validity check

newk commented on 2021-02-14 13:26 (UTC)

I had no issues with the validity check here. I just upgraded to 2.9-2

niclasc commented on 2021-02-14 11:11 (UTC)

svtplay-dl-2.9-2 does not pass the validity check.

swearchnick commented on 2021-02-12 06:06 (UTC)

@nicolito: Thank you, updated. Can someone answer me why this is changing? The checksum is correct at the time the PKGBUILD is uploaded.

nicolito commented on 2021-02-11 11:36 (UTC)

2.9-1 does not pass validity check. sha256 should be 39cd333912f8e9a7010d8ad44fce0df7dcad4920aa4662c9543905bad799f975

swearchnick commented on 2021-01-02 08:49 (UTC)

@niclasc It works now, can not reproduce failed validity check. Make sure you make a clean build and try also without an aur helper.

niclasc commented on 2021-01-01 15:48 (UTC) (edited on 2021-01-01 15:48 (UTC) by niclasc)

2.8-3 does not pass the validity check.

swearchnick commented on 2020-12-30 07:50 (UTC)

@newk Thank you, it's fixed now.

newk commented on 2020-12-29 09:54 (UTC)

2.8-2 is not passing the validity check.

swearchnick commented on 2020-10-02 14:04 (UTC)

@Ketchup901: Added perl that provides pod2man to makedepends.

Ketchup901 commented on 2020-10-02 09:31 (UTC)

Missing dependency pod2man

swearchnick commented on 2019-08-26 15:21 (UTC) (edited on 2019-08-26 15:22 (UTC) by swearchnick)

@sQVe: Thank you for reporting, it should be ok now.

sQVe commented on 2019-08-26 06:04 (UTC) (edited on 2019-08-26 06:29 (UTC) by sQVe)

Current release 2.2-1 is not passing the validity check.

@swearchnick :pointing-up:

swearchnick commented on 2019-01-17 18:39 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting, it's fixed now.

StolenBanana commented on 2019-01-16 15:57 (UTC) (edited on 2019-01-16 16:08 (UTC) by StolenBanana)

I cant update to 2.1, it says: "==> Validating source files with sha256sums... 2.1.tar.gz ... FAILED" In packed the sha256sum is = "de90e41524f6ac47aba7502340cc15e1345ecefaaf99a5120af315d836a5c684" But the package sha256sum is: "99abdcbaadd6c4bdaf09b2a86ff8c50cbfcb6fdd522210b9c758474d14aab587"