Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/01/24/22:14:40
Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> Just to reemphasize, these are *not* corrupt tarballs. They are
> tarballs exactly as downloaded, extracted, and installed. It's just
> that later the versions on the cygwin mirror became different while
> keeping the same version/filename. I verified in a couple of the
> cases that the newer version actually had executables rebuilt, with
> slightly different file sizes and timestamps.
>
> I don't think I have any of them around any more, but if you were to
> pick a current tarball in your local package directory and un-bzip2 it
> and re-bzip2 it with a different compression level, you should see
> the problem.
Well it's corrupt from the standpoint of setup.exe, which only knows
that it has encountered a file with the specified name but incorrect
size and/or MD5 based on the information in the setup.ini file. Short
of AI there is no way for it to distinguish this case from the case of
something that is actually corrupt.
If people are uploading new packages (or otherwise modifying them once
"in flight") without bumping the version, then that needs to stop.
Brian
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -