MD5s of setup.exe on mirrors.

Markus E.L.
Mon May 14 20:18:00 GMT 2007

Christopher Faylor writes:

> On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 03:13:58PM +0200, ls-cygwin-2006 wrote:
>>Brian Dessent writes:
>>> ls-cygwin-2006@xxxxxxxxxxx.xx wrote:
>>>> Please anyone touch setup.exe? If the mirrors pick it up then we (you!
>>>> :) know that it is, somehow, a time stamping issue. The issue can
>>>> probably not be cleared up right now and is probably not worth the
>>>> trouble, but perhaps it can be just fixed.
>>> I've touched the setup.exe on  
>>Thanks Brian. It seems to work: Not all mirrors have picked up the
>>change yet, but those that have and those which I checke are now
>>carrying the executable from
>>> I think you should email the hostmaster of if the
>>> one byte discrepancy continues because it would indicate a flaw in
>>> their mirroring process.
>>Thankfully I'm spared to argue that, but the executable was wrong at
>>all mirrors I checked, not only That would suggests
>>a common cause, very probably something at the master site (which is
>>, isn't it?). Whatever -- I can't see me writing the
>>host masters of some 20 or 30 mirrors to point them to an error that
>>was probably upstream.
>>(Or did I somehow miss the significance of in that
>>But thankfully that is academic now:
> It was actually all academic before since: 1) there was nothing wrong
> with the setup.exe on the mirrors and 2) people shouldn't have been
> running setup.exe from the mirrors to begin with.

That' why, (a) I was not concerned about setup.exe at the mirrors
being "wrong" but rather about the discrepancy between setup.exe's
md5sum and the sums listed in the accompanying md5.sum. I feared, it
might irritate people actually browsing the mirrors. But (b) since you
haven't got any complaints for the last 20 months or so (the time
since the discrepancy exists), you're probably even got your wish
granted already: Nobody is taking setup.exe from the mirrors (or they
don't care for the md5sums).

> This really does not, IMO, deserve as much attention as has been given
> here.
>>PS: Brian, I've been living under the impression that we are under the
>>    rule not to include cleartext email addresses in quotes? Is that
>>    still so and would you, please, not burn my address further?
> Your From: is not formatted to include a name so I suspect that Brian,
> like I (and Corinna, FWIW), has an email client which uses the email
> address in that case.

I understand. I was not aware of the existence of such clients,
instead assumed they would provide a mangling function like abc@xy.z
-> abc AT xy DOT z. Good to know I can do something to make that work
-> better.

Regards -- Markus

Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

More information about the Cygwin mailing list