On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 07:09:03 +0200
roberth rob...@openbsd.pap.st wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 21:46:41 -0700
patrick keshishian pkesh...@gmail.com wrote:
as this, where -- the mortal is accused to be a whiner.
(...)
the key words were every time this happens ...
if you find an error
Marco Peereboom wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 01:08:25AM +, JC Choisy wrote:
That being out of the way, you got me wondering what good is
any integrity check which failure is OK.
It is only meant to help uptight people having some sort of false sense
of integrity/security. It really is
* Scott McEachern sc...@blackstaff.ca [2010-10-16 05:31]:
I sometimes see the snaps (or X) haven't been built for a few or
more days, and I was just wondering why that is?
plenty of possibilities.
theo (or todd when it comes to X) was gone or had better stuff to do
a problem with copying snaps
From: Theo de Raadt deraadt () cvs ! openbsd ! org
Date: 2010-10-16 0:29:52
I should have actually shown how much was mismatched...and it's more than
just the kernel:
---(fine details
skipped)--
JC
Frank Bax wrote:
Marco Peereboom wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 01:08:25AM +, JC Choisy wrote:
That being out of the way, you got me wondering what good is
any integrity check which failure is OK.
It is only meant to help uptight people having some sort of false
sense
of
hmm, on Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 07:09:03AM +0200, roberth said that
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 21:46:41 -0700
patrick keshishian pkesh...@gmail.com wrote:
as this, where -- the mortal is accused to be a whiner.
(...)
the key words were every time this happens ...
if you find an error or
Hi,
The kernel in latest i386 and amd64 snapshots has a sha256 checksum
that doesn't match what's listed in the SHA256 file. bsd.rd complains
about this when trying to upgrade.
This is with the snapshots of Oct. 14th
Thanks,
-jc
I should have actually shown how much was mismatched...and it's more than just
the kernel:
(SHA256) bsd: FAILED
(SHA256) bsd.mp: FAILED
(SHA256) bsd.rd: OK
(SHA256) cd48.iso: FAILED
(SHA256) cdboot: FAILED
(SHA256) cdbr: FAILED
(SHA256) cdemu48.iso: FAILED
(SHA256) comp48.tgz: FAILED
(SHA256)
I can also confirm this on 2 different US ftp servers.
JC Choisy(tin...@tinono.com)@Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 08:58:49PM +:
Hi,
The kernel in latest i386 and amd64 snapshots has a sha256 checksum
that doesn't match what's listed in the SHA256 file. bsd.rd complains
about this when trying
I should have actually shown how much was mismatched...and it's more than just
the kernel:
(SHA256) bsd: FAILED
(SHA256) bsd.mp: FAILED
(SHA256) bsd.rd: OK
(SHA256) cd48.iso: FAILED
(SHA256) cdboot: FAILED
(SHA256) cdbr: FAILED
(SHA256) cdemu48.iso: FAILED
(SHA256) comp48.tgz: FAILED
(SHA256)
Theo de Raadt deraadt at cvs.openbsd.org writes:
With snapshots, this will happen from time to time.
If people start not understanding why the install media does this
check, and that failure is OK, then I will remove the code on the
install media.
Adjust your expectations. A hash failure
OpenBSD-current is most of the times an excellent quality system,
better and more reliable than most other 'stable' systems. This may
alter one's ability to keep his expectations where they should be.
That being out of the way, you got me wondering what good is
any integrity check which failure
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 01:08:25AM +, JC Choisy wrote:
Theo de Raadt deraadt at cvs.openbsd.org writes:
With snapshots, this will happen from time to time.
If people start not understanding why the install media does this
check, and that failure is OK, then I will remove the code on
Okey dokey...now I know. Hmmm...I've followed snaps for years and always check
sums...and I can't remember a time that they failed. Well no worries...I'll
roll with it, thanks for the reality check.
Theo de Raadt(dera...@cvs.openbsd.org)@Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 06:29:52PM -0600:
Snipped...
Marco Peereboom slash at peereboom.us writes:
It is only meant to help uptight people having some sort of false sense
of integrity/security. It really is for release only because snapshots
are a moving target. In my opinion the whole check is a giant waste of
time because every damn time
On 10/15/10 20:29, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Another alternative is that I only do snapshot builds about every
2 weeks. How's that idea?
A little off-topic, but now's as good a time as any to ask:
I sometimes see the snaps (or X) haven't been built for a few or more
days, and I was just
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org
wrote:
OpenBSD-current is most of the times an excellent quality system,
better and more reliable than most other 'stable' systems. This may
alter one's ability to keep his expectations where they should be.
That being out of
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org
wrote:
OpenBSD-current is most of the times an excellent quality system,
better and more reliable than most other 'stable' systems. This may
alter one's ability to keep his expectations where they should be.
That being out of
I sometimes see the snaps (or X) haven't been built for a few or more
days, and I was just wondering why that is?
The person who does builds has a life.
Is the build automated, or manually run?
The builds are not done automated. Automated build structures don't
work. The tree does not
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 21:46:41 -0700
patrick keshishian pkesh...@gmail.com wrote:
as this, where -- the mortal is accused to be a whiner.
(...)
the key words were every time this happens ...
if you find an error or something strange, most likely you aren't the
first to have encountered it.
20 matches
Mail list logo
