Ken Moffat wrote:
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 01:10:06PM +0000, Nate Costello wrote:
I'm getting an incorrect hash for the lfs-bootscripts file. This is using
the development branch. Can anyone attempt to repeat my finding or
provide guidance? I apologize in advance if it is bad form to email this
list about the development version.
First, it's perfectly fine to ask about problems building the dev
book on this list. But, based on what I note below I'll Cc: the
-dev list because I didn't expect this.
Thanks,
Nate
File path:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/downloads/development/lfs-bootscripts-20170626.tar.bz2
Supposed Correct Hash:
4d886e7f5c3b092991cd0c56f3d8aa31
Listed at:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/chapter03/packages.html
I wonder if we have somehow switched to regenerating these ? My
local copy (downloaded on 19th July) has
c8c20c854d7590662ae04f21949566ea
The 8.1 book, which uses these, says
d4992527d67f28e2d0c12e3495422eab
And that matches what is in
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/downloads/8.1/lfs-bootscripts-20170626.tar.bz2
The script that rebuilds the book daily also repackages the boot scripts
and the timestamps will change each time, even though the content does not.
On my local system, the tarballs are not rebuilt without a change to the
file name because I do not do a fresh checkout of the sources into an
empty directory like the daily scripts do.
I could update the md5sum in the on-line book daily, but I think that
would also cause problems.
I suppose I could come up with a way to put in a note that would only
generate in the development versions of the book(s), but right now I think
it is more effort than it is worth. The daily build script has been
unchanged for 18 months and this it the first anyone noticed.
All this applies to the lfs systemd development version and blfs tarballs
also.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
