Re: Same hashfiles for files that should be different from each other?

[Andy Simpkins <rattusrattus@debian.org>]

On 30/03/2019 08:49, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (Cc-ing debian-live@lists.debian.org)
>
> Evert Kuijpers <hysssop@gmail.com> wrote to debian-cd:
> > Both debian-live-9.8.0-i386-lxde.contents and
> > debian-live-9.8.0-i386-mate.contents have all the same hashes.
> > Both debian-live-9.8.0-amd64-lxde.contents and
> > debian-live-9.8.0-amd64-mate.contents have all the same hashes.
> > It is quite possible that two of these four files should have different
> > contents.
> >
> > See https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current-live/amd64/iso-hybrid/
> > and https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current-live/i386/iso-hybrid/
> >
> > Greetings from Evert Kuijpers, Tilburg in The Netherlands, hysssop@gmail.com
> That's because they have identical file content, because the trees of the
> ISOs bear identical file paths which nearly match the .content paths list.
> (The file paths "/isolinux/boot.cat" are not in .content, because these
>   file paths got created by option -c of xorrisofs when the ISO was produced.)
>
> So the question is whether it is normal that both ISOs have absolutely
> identical file paths in their trees.
>
> The same checksum duplicity can be seen with
>    5849124a0e25d1318a880e98b9a8123f  debian-live-9.8.0-amd64-cinnamon.contents
>    5849124a0e25d1318a880e98b9a8123f  debian-live-9.8.0-amd64-gnome.contents
That is exactly what Kuijpers has just pointed out.

Clearly something has gone wrong with the automated build somewhere - 
different desktop environments should have a different manifest from 
each other...

Thank you for pointing out there is an issue.

I have not looked yet - but the issue could be in one of several 
places.  (1) The manifest is incorrect and we are building identical 
ISOs and just giving different names to them  (2) we are building the 
content of the ISOs correctly, but incorrectly reporting the manifest 
(3) we are reporting the manifest correctly and we are reporting 
incorrect checksums

I'll take a closer look now

/Andy