[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: when i use jigdo to download old version debian i got this problem.



On Fri, 22 Dec 2017, Thomas Schmitt <scdbackup@gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Cabal Cabal wrote:
>> 23:05:19 (103.64 KB/s) - `debian-6.0.5-amd64-DVD-1.iso.tmpdir/us.cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/snapshot/Debian/pool/main/g/ghostscript/ghostscript-cups_8.71~dfsg2-9_amd64.deb' saved [61234/61234]
>> ...
>> Aaargh - 1 files could not be downloaded. ...
>
> If this is 23:05:19+8000 today, then again a file on us.cdimage.debian.org
> went bad. We had this only a few days ago, when at least 12 did not match
> the expected MD5s.

I set the system rummaging through the several million files involved
last week, with the result that about ten thousand were discovered to be
missing or corrupt (in all the cases I've checked, the corruption
consisting of a few bytes replaced with NULs, so nothing malicious, just
the result of a raid/filesystem SNAFU, as expected).

I've got that number down to about 400 now, which is mostly concentrated
in a load of debian-installer related files for versions
20150422+deb8u4+b1 and 20150422+deb8u4+b3, mostly armel and armhf.  I
suspect that nobody will ever care about those.

There are four jigdo files that were also corrupt:

  debian-501-amd64-BD-1.jigdo
  debian-502-arm-CD-1.jigdo
  debian-7.5.0-sparc-CD-56.jigdo
  debian-stretch-DI-alpha5-source-DLBD-1.jigdo

If anyone knows of good copies of those, please send me the URLs and
I'll fill in the last few gaps.

Hopefully that has dealt with this problem for most people now.

Sorry about not noticing this earlier. I had thought that I'd rsynced
over all the damaged files at the time when the damage occurred, but it
seems that I overlooked the jigdo snapshot area.

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/    http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,    GERMANY

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: