X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s= default; b=DmIlvUGieJ0IvhDEZIDy5DIS2lKJa7s0JdUsYF1MghfS+B0Zad7kr YlBNAohHjxqwrRut/hTJqAUJqxPpeZB4M8lGvw3lw0h60ZhjKhr+XkoXhnh3bBvq dmb1nzEzFmNnMd/cgNOQoAwc4g9gLx3yx5324mhIsxnJ05oDX0OLaY= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=v ulc106pVo+Y4yUSZXlbqutVNis=; b=raMR6BLfTioUwknsEdSNb2wNQtsnBd66t RuIvcst5PNFwH8S5ila7Q07EjKxB6jTA1h+G2S16sVF45QnulMlsKejP6M+tvKQk djoheDvgM1B4qwcqBreCxT58CzI+pC8cXqViMudSrZrG+L2hwr4fL7wO7/jM8LL4 jFRgXLVtGw= Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: EXE01-WPP.cisra.canon.com.au Message-ID: <53BA242D.1040101@cisra.canon.com.au> Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 14:38:05 +1000 From: Luke Kendall User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "cygwin AT cygwin DOT com" CC: audit Subject: Observations about Cygwin's md5 checksums Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Here are five observations about md5 checksums in Cygwin. I share it in case it may be of some small interest to a few people. Please note that I may be wrong; if so, I'm happy to be corrected. 1) For each package, Cygwin stores the md5sum for the components of the main parts of the package in the setup.ini file. The exception is the setup.hint file: its md5 sum is not recorded in setup.ini. 2) In each zip file for each package, an md5.sum file is almost always provided. But not always. (*) 3) These md5.sum files list all the components of the package (including setup.hint), but these md5 sums are not reliable: they often don't match the actual md5 checksum (of the file itself, or of course the md5 stored for it in setup.ini).(**) 4) The most common file to have the wrong md5 checksum is setup.hint 5) It's not rare for files to be mentioned in a package's md5.sum which are be absent from the package itself.(***) I'm curious about the purpose of having the md5.sum file in each package. Is it a relic of a previous system? The above observations are based on a few weeks of mirroring and automatically checking the md5 sums of what we downloaded. The main site we used was aarnet.edu.au (IIRC); recently we changed to mirrors.kernel.org, but from my ad hoc checks there wasn't much difference between the two). Regards, luke (*) For mirrors.kernel.org last night: Worrying: X11/khronos-opengl-registry has no md5.sum file Worrying: X11/xlaunch has no md5.sum file Worrying: cygwin64-gcc/cygwin64-gcc-debuginfo has no md5.sum file Worrying: git/git-oodiff has no md5.sum file Worrying: git/stgit has no md5.sum file Worrying: git/tig has no md5.sum file Worrying: man has no md5.sum file Worrying: python/python-paramiko has no md5.sum file (**) $ grep FAILED [path-omitted]/x86/cygwin-archive-incomplete.txt | wc 55 110 1463 $ grep "^setup.hint: FAILED" [path-omitted]/x86/cygwin-archive-incomplete.txt | wc 28 56 560 (***) $ wc -l < [path-omitted]/x86/cygwin-archive-all-missing-files.txt 406 -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple