openoffice 2.0 package issues

[Fernan Aguero]

Hi!

First of all let me thank you for your work. I know that oo
is a big port and I assume it's not an easy task to maintain
it. 

I want to install the current version of
editors/openoffice-2.0, and I've got across some issues:

i. pkg_name

I've downloaded OOo_SRC680_m146_FreeBSD60Intel_install_en-US.tbz
from ftp://ooopackages.good-day.net/pub/OpenOffice.org/FreeBSD/2.0m146/FreeBSD6/
but 'portinstall -PP editors/openoffice-2.0' fails because
it looks for a package named 'openoffice-2.0.1.tbz' 

I remember writing about this issue in the past ... so here
I go again, what is the reason for this port to behave
differently than the rest of the ports regarding the package
name?

if the package name is the one that's expected by all the
ports tools, then we can just set PACKAGE_SITE and 
use portupgrade/portinstall easily enough:
setenv PACKAGE_SITE ftp://ooopackages.good-day.net/pub/OpenOffice.org/FreeBSD/2.0m146/FreeBSD6/
portinstall -PP editors/openoffice-2.0

Perhaps you need the information encoded in the pkg_name:
m146 (milestone?) or SRC680 (snapshot?) Why not set this in
the port, perhaps in PORTREVISION?


ii. checksums

So, I just renamed the file to the expected pkg_name
(openoffice-2.0.1.tbz), moved it into the expected place, and tried again. 

portinstall -PP editors/openoffice.org-2.0
--->  Checking for the latest package of 'editors/openoffice.org-2.0'
tar: Unrecognized archive format: Inappropriate file type or format
pkg_info: tar extract of /usr/ports/packages/All/openoffice.org-2.0.1.tbz failed!
pkg_info: error during unpacking, no info for 'openoffice.org-2.0.1.tbz' availabl
e

Seems like there's a problem with the tarball, since tar
also gives me an error:

tar tvyf /usr/ports/packages/All/openoffice.org-2.0.1.tbz
 [ lots of output snipped ]
-r--r--r--  0 root   wheel    17184 Dec 23 19:36 openoffice.org-SRC680_m146/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/zlib.so
tar: Unrecognized archive format: Inappropriate file type or format

Perhaps it will be a good idea to include checksums along
with the packages so we can see if the downloaded package is
not truncated? I'm downloading it again just in case ... 

Fernan