User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060909 Firefox/1.5.0.7 Build Identifier: After visiting the Gentoo site and seeing that the live dvd was not available on http, I decided to begin downloading minimal and live media from Bittorrent, as I wanted the whole x86 "set". When the iso's where downloaded,I md5summed them with the .DIGESTS found in each torrent folder.Next, I downloaded portage and stages from http as there where no peers on their torrents(Either give the whole distro on torrent, or don't bother at all Gentoo developers...).On the http mirror, I saw .ASC,.CONTENTS and .DIGESTS files and I downloaded them to double check the minimal and live cds.I cannot understand why the DVD checksums where not on the mirrors. Both the torrents and the portage+stages where checked with md5 (I used the md5 checksums of the .DIGESTS file found in each torrent folder for the iso's and the ones I got from the mirror for the rest) and found good.The final step was to compare the checksums of the .asc,.CONTENTS and .DIGESTS files found in the torrent with these I downloaded from the mirror, just to double check... Unfortunately the .asc and .DIGESTS files where different and I had to download the minimal iso from a mirror to see if there was an error on the checksum file, or if the iso's where different between torrent and mirrors. I got reaaaally mad when I discovered that the two iso images where good, BUT DIFFERENT!!!!This may also happen on portage and stages torrents. This is a ridiculous and embarrasing mistake that is unacceptable for a stable GNU/Linux distro.Now if you fix this fucking mistake, some suckers will have to download the two iso's AGAIN.At least, in Debian I had such things in the WEEKLY official TESTING, NOT IN THE QUARTER-YEARLY STABLE RELEASE... Get SERIOUS people...and start respecting Gentoo users,especially those that try to offload your servers with Bittorrent.. Reproducible: Always
I dislike your language and your stuck caps lock and ! key, dude...
We are aware of the problem. It even says as much in the GWN from a couple weeks back. We updated the images on the mirrors, but our torrents guy has been AWOL for more than 2 weeks. Anyway, your attitude sucks. Please adjust it. We're all volunteers here and do this all of the kindness of our hearts. We don't owe you anything, so being rude and condescending is not within your rights.
(In reply to comment #0) > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) > Gecko/20060909 Firefox/1.5.0.7 > Build Identifier: > > After visiting the Gentoo site and seeing that the live dvd was not available > on http, I decided to begin downloading minimal and live media from Bittorrent, > as I wanted the whole x86 "set". > When the iso's where downloaded,I md5summed them with the .DIGESTS found in > each torrent folder.Next, I downloaded portage and stages from http as there > where no peers on their torrents(Either give the whole distro on torrent, or > don't bother at all Gentoo developers...).On the http mirror, I saw > .ASC,.CONTENTS and .DIGESTS files and I downloaded them to double check the > minimal and live cds.I cannot understand why the DVD checksums where not on the > mirrors. > > Both the torrents and the portage+stages where checked with md5 (I used the md5 > checksums of the .DIGESTS file found in each torrent folder for the iso's and > the ones I got from the mirror for the rest) and found good.The final step was > to compare the checksums of the .asc,.CONTENTS and .DIGESTS files found in the > torrent with these I downloaded from the mirror, just to double check... > Unfortunately the .asc and .DIGESTS files where different and I had to > download > the minimal iso from a mirror to see if there was an error on the checksum > file, > or if the iso's where different between torrent and mirrors. > I got reaaaally mad when I discovered that the two iso images where good, BUT > DIFFERENT!!!!This may also happen on portage and stages torrents. > > This is a ridiculous and embarrasing mistake that is unacceptable for a stable > GNU/Linux distro.Now if you fix this fucking mistake, some suckers will have to > download the two iso's AGAIN.At least, in Debian I had such things in the > WEEKLY > official TESTING, NOT IN THE QUARTER-YEARLY STABLE RELEASE... > Get SERIOUS people...and start respecting Gentoo users,especially those that > try > to offload your servers with Bittorrent.. > > > Reproducible: Always > I must inform you that my Caps Lock key is working fine, and that my attitude is like this because I downloaded Gentoo for bug fixing ONLY,I am not being paid from anyone and I have to download the two iso files again.I want to help Gentoo but I get pissed off when some of the developers know the problem and just don't want/care to fix it. I believe that despite the torrent problem, media,portage and stages updates should be instantly recognizable by their name.For example: install-x86-minimal-2006.1a.iso install-x86-minimal-2006.1r1.iso install-x86-minimal-2006.1-0510.iso (for the current image) This way, one could easily understand that the two iso's in 2006.1 torrents where the original 2006.1 minimal and LiveCD media and not the updated ones. Obviously, this is a very bad practise and there is no excuse for naming two or more differnet files with the same name. O.K., you know that these files are different but how about the rest of the world? I have a suggestion to make for the torrents.REMOVE the old(original images based) torrents UNTIL the updated ones are available.DO NOT LET PEOPLE DOWNLOAD BUGGY files BY ANY MEANS(Including the shutdown of the peers for buggy images). If the developer(s?) cannot cope with the volume of the torrents, I volunteer to help in the torrent creation. That's all I have to say, I really do hope that Gentoo developers will start naming the .iso's and .bz2's with revision numbers.What matters most is not my language, but to get the problem resolved once and for all.
Whatever.
