verify build files for LFS

Mike McCarty Mike.McCarty at
Thu Mar 19 01:56:54 PDT 2009

Chris Staub wrote:
> Mike McCarty wrote:
>> 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.
>> Mike
> I just downloaded the inetutils 1.5 tarball from the LFS ftp, and from 
> gnu, and both are identical. Also, the SHA1SUM given in the SHA1SUMS 
> file in the 6.4 dir on the LFS download site matches what I get for both 
> ineutils tarballs...

That's odd. I got different files, and gunzip didn't complain
that either was corrupt. That's confusing.


> Why it's saying "FAILED" for you, I don't know.

It's because the files have different content.

I just re pulled from both sites, and

$ ls -l gnu-site/inetutils-1.5.tar.gz lfs-site/inetutils-1.5.tar.gz
-rw-rw-r--  1 jmccarty jmccarty 1390529 Jun 29  2007 
-rw-rw-r--  1 jmccarty jmccarty 1390529 Jan  4 22:20 
$ diff -s gnu-site/inetutils-1.5.tar.gz lfs-site/inetutils-1.5.tar.gz
Files gnu-site/inetutils-1.5.tar.gz and lfs-site/inetutils-1.5.tar.gz 
are identical

Using the link you helpfully provided:

$ wget -N -c -nv
02:54:59 URL: 
[11,704] -> ".listing" [1]
02:55:00 URL: 
[5,653] -> "SHA1SUMS" [1]

$ grep inetutils-1.5.tar.gz SHA1SUMS
825834b94cd387b2d088ef1cfe727de824b9589e  inetutils-1.5.tar.gz

$ sha1sum lfs-site/inetutils-1.5.tar.gz
825834b94cd387b2d088ef1cfe727de824b9589e  lfs-site/inetutils-1.5.tar.gz
$ sha1sum gnu-site/inetutils-1.5.tar.gz
825834b94cd387b2d088ef1cfe727de824b9589e  gnu-site/inetutils-1.5.tar.gz

Perhaps the SHA1SUMS file is incorrect?

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