the size and md5sum on the download site are correct they are for the gzip compressed tgz file
*whatever you used to download the tgz gunzip'd it without telling you* the size and md5sum you get are for the uncompressed tgz file On Wed, 21 May 2008 19:40:15 -0400 Mark Tague wrote: > > whatever you used to download the tgz gunzip'd it without telling you > > the md5sum of the gunzip'd tarball is > > 3ca43501a73a0312e533d03f67e5bd41 > > I've seen internet explorer do this > > -- Glenn Fowler -- AT&T Research, Florham Park NJ -- > Re: ast-ksh.2008-02-02.tgz source code > However, this is exactly the same md5sum I get when I run md5 command on the > tarball after downloading (all done on FreeBSD 6.2 Unix like system). The > concern is that this md5sum that we both get, is NOT the same as what is > posted on the download web page. > More detailed description follows - > The web page: > http://www.research.att.com/~gsf/cgi-bin/download.cgi?action=list&name=ast-ksh > link for: ast-ksh.2008-02-02.tgz source code > shows a different md5sum. That is the concern I have. Since you get the same > md5sum that I get > 3ca43501a73a0312e533d03f67e5bd41 > then I am wondering if the ast-ksh.2008-02-02.tgz file on the server has been > compromised or if the web page showing is showing the incorrect md5sum > d2a71e320fbaa7a0fd950a27c7e4b099 > and wrong file size of: 1686309 ? > Note: FreeBSD (ver 6.2) Ports package is expecting the following: > md5sum: d2a71e320fbaa7a0fd950a27c7e4b099 > tarball size: 1686309 > tarball name: ast-ksh.2008-02-02.tgz > This seems to agree with what the web page (www.research.att.com, server) > says the md5sum and tarball size should be. Therefore something changed. If > the tarball is in fact good and uncompromised then please let met know. In > that case, how do I report such erroneous md5sum and file size? _______________________________________________ ast-developers mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-developers
