From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Mar 24 16:42: 4 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from chmls06.mediaone.net (chmls06.mediaone.net [24.128.1.71]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 302A637BDBC for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:42:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pulsifer@mediaone.net) Received: from ahp3 (ahp.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.184.250]) by chmls06.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA06304; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 19:41:43 -0500 (EST) From: "Allen Pulsifer" To: "Mitch Collinsworth" , Cc: "freebsd-questions@FreeBSD. ORG" Subject: RE: Is 4.0-iso checksum right? [was: iso-image ] Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 19:41:44 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <200003250006.TAA36595@larryboy.graphics.cornell.edu> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG That's not a bad idea. How about it Jordan? Is there some way of distinguishing the various iterations of ISO image that are produced as you try to roll a good release? Maybe you could put a single letter suffix after the name, such as, "4.0a-install.iso", "4.0b-install.iso", etc.? That would also help identify the exact file to which checksum.md5 is referring. Allen > -----Original Message----- > From: Mitch Collinsworth [mailto:mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU] > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 7:06 PM > To: Allen Pulsifer > Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD. ORG > Subject: Re: Is 4.0-iso checksum right? [was: iso-image ] > > > > >I started a download from ftp.freebsd.org this Tues, and it took about > >24 hours to complete. The checksum matched up ok, but it looks like > >the ISO image has changed since then. > > yep, that's it. my checksum matches the old file. guess I should have > grabbed the checksum file first. :-) I hadn't notice the date change. > > That's one thing that just doesn't make sense to me about the way fbsd > releases are being managed. I have absolutely no problem with the > release being re-done for just about any reason they think is > justifiable. But there really should be a field somewhere in the > version/release number to allow distinguishing between one and another. > Anything that's important enough to warrant re-issueing the release is > obviously important enough to have a number to indicate the version you > have has that revision in it. > > -Mitch To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message