From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 21:00:08 -0500 From: William Josephson To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] invalid md5/sha1 on plan9port.tgz Message-ID: <20050303020008.GB27404@mero.morphisms.net> References: <42262FC0.7000304@maZZoo.de> <20050302222313.GB26014@mero.morphisms.net> <422643E8.6060909@maZZoo.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <422643E8.6060909@maZZoo.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1df2d6cc-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 11:53:28PM +0100, Matthias Wenzel wrote: > William Josephson wrote: > >Try _plan9port.tgz. I don't know what the difference is -- > >the mtimes suggest russ changed something today. > > still not too convincing: OK; I assume Russ will clear things up, but it just looks to me like he's been moving some things around. In any case, the hash you're using to compare is old: it is dated Feb. 2 whereas the current plan9port.tgz is dated Mar. 2. The shell script that updates the tarball whenever there are changes to be pulled in from CVS doesn't update the hash. From poking at the logs it looks as though the newest one just pulled in some bug fixes for libp9client that went into CVS yesterday. It isn't as if the hash really helps since the hash and the distribution are sitting on the same filesystem in the first place. In any event, the tarball dated Mar. 2 has the sha1 hash: 5d02e205d88667a6a063fac65111ddbc7b00d20a plan9port.tgz -WJ