verify build files for LFS

Mike McCarty Mike.McCarty at
Wed Mar 18 12:34:25 PDT 2009

Mike McCarty wrote:
> Mike McCarty wrote:
>> support wrote:
>>> I don't quite get what you are after, if you are downloading a file from
>>> the authors site, and you also want an md5 from the same site to confirm
>>> the download, its kind of pointless.  If the site has been hacked and
>>> the original source replaced with something else, it stands to reason
>>> that the md5 (on the same site) would be compromised also.  The download
>>> will reach you in original condition thanks to the fact that tcp/ip does
>>> error checking as it goes.  As for instructions on confirming the md5 on
>> Umm, TCP/IP does do error checking. That does not guarantee an error
>> free download. The error checking used is rather weak. I forget the
>> name of the checksum used, but essentially it's sum_of_wordss mod(65535)
>> and sum_of_sums_of_words mod(65535). It's named for the guy who
>> suggested it, and IIRC his name starts with an "F". Anyway, it's very
> I recalled it! "Fletcher's Checksum" Sheesh! It's pretty much
> universally hated by everyone who uses it.
> I just did this:
> $ sha1sum -c ../../../6.4/SHA1SUMS 2>&1 | grep -v OK
> inetutils-1.5.tar.gz: FAILED
> sha1sum: WARNING: 1 of 85 computed checksums did NOT match
> Hmm. OTOH:
> $ gunzip -tv inetutils-1.5.tar.gz
> inetutils-1.5.tar.gz:    OK
> So, which file is in error, the tar.gz or the SHA1SUMS file?
> Gonna have to look into this.

Ok, gunzip thinks there is no error, but when I pulled that
file from

it's different from the wget-list file's URL target

So, which one is correct? the one from the GNU project page, which
does not match the SHA1SUMS file, or the one from the LFS page,
which does? Presumably, any difference between what GNU provides
and what LFS actually needs would be provided by a corresponding
patch file.

Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!

More information about the lfs-support mailing list