PDA

View Full Version : Corrupt 5.4.0 tar



Arnon Meshoulam
2005-01-08, 18:01
Have been trying to download the 5.4.0 and latest 5.401 nightly in tar
format and keep on getting a corrupt file (zip is correct, tar is
incorrect). Is it just my problem?

Arnon

Mike Scott
2005-01-09, 11:39
On Sat, 2005-01-08 at 19:01, Arnon Meshoulam wrote:
> Have been trying to download the 5.4.0 and latest 5.401 nightly in tar
> format and keep on getting a corrupt file (zip is correct, tar is
> incorrect). Is it just my problem?

Are you using the 'z' switch to untar the file?

--
- Mike Scott
- mscott (AT) pyewacket (DOT) org

Arnon Meshoulam
2005-01-09, 13:12
Mike Scott wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-01-08 at 19:01, Arnon Meshoulam wrote:
>
>>Have been trying to download the 5.4.0 and latest 5.401 nightly in tar
>>format and keep on getting a corrupt file (zip is correct, tar is
>>incorrect). Is it just my problem?
>
>
> Are you using the 'z' switch to untar the file?
>
Yes, of course.

Arnon

kdf
2005-01-09, 13:31
> On Sat, 2005-01-08 at 19:01, Arnon Meshoulam wrote:
> > Have been trying to download the 5.4.0 and latest 5.401 nightly in tar
> > format and keep on getting a corrupt file (zip is correct, tar is
> > incorrect). Is it just my problem?
>
I'm getting the same errors. The server must be having a problem taking the
snapshot every night.

-kdf

Mike Scott
2005-01-10, 06:01
On Sun, 2005-01-09 at 14:12, Arnon Meshoulam wrote:
> Mike Scott wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-01-08 at 19:01, Arnon Meshoulam wrote:
> >
> >>Have been trying to download the 5.4.0 and latest 5.401 nightly in tar
> >>format and keep on getting a corrupt file (zip is correct, tar is
> >>incorrect). Is it just my problem?
> >
> >
> > Are you using the 'z' switch to untar the file?
> >
> Yes, of course.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply anything, it's just that I've done that
myself and gotten strange results. I just downloaded the tarball myself
again and it does appear to be hosed (the copy I downloaded a couple of
weeks ago is OK).

When I try to untar it I get:

mscott@path:~> tar xzvf SlimServer_v5.4.0.tar.gz
tar: This does not look like a tar archive
tar: Skipping to next header
tar: Archive contains obsolescent base-64 headers
tar: Error exit delayed from previous errors

I also noticed the file size is different than the one I had:

9491546 2005-01-10 06:53 SlimServer_v5.4.0.tar.gz (bad)
9511288 2004-12-01 18:55 SlimServer_v5.4.0.tar.gz (good)

Hopefully somebody from SD monitors this list and can put the good copy
back.

--
- Mike Scott
- mscott (AT) pyewacket (DOT) org

Dan Sully
2005-01-10, 11:24
* Mike Scott shaped the electrons to say...

>> > Are you using the 'z' switch to untar the file?
>> >
>> Yes, of course.
>
>Sorry, didn't mean to imply anything, it's just that I've done that
>myself and gotten strange results. I just downloaded the tarball myself
>again and it does appear to be hosed (the copy I downloaded a couple of
>weeks ago is OK).

It's likely that your browser already ungzipped the tarball when it was
downloaded, so the 'z' switch is actually causing the problem.

What does the output of 'file SlimServer_v5.4.0.tar.gz' look like?

-D
--
There was supposed to be a big kaboom.

Mike Scott
2005-01-11, 05:53
On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 12:24, Dan Sully wrote:
> * Mike Scott shaped the electrons to say...
>
> >> > Are you using the 'z' switch to untar the file?
> >> >
> >> Yes, of course.
> >
> >Sorry, didn't mean to imply anything, it's just that I've done that
> >myself and gotten strange results. I just downloaded the tarball myself
> >again and it does appear to be hosed (the copy I downloaded a couple of
> >weeks ago is OK).
>
> It's likely that your browser already ungzipped the tarball when it was
> downloaded, so the 'z' switch is actually causing the problem.
>
> What does the output of 'file SlimServer_v5.4.0.tar.gz' look like?

I don't think that's the case as I used Firefox on SuSE 9.1 both times
and have never had this problem with other files. SD doesn't appear to
have an FTP server so I have to download through the browser.
Also the corrupt file is smaller than the good one.
I tried both with and without the 'z' switch and got the same results.

Is it possible that when the file was uploaded to the server it was not
transferred using binary mode? Converting CR/LF pairs to LFs would
account for the smaller file size as well as the corruption.

Also, I just tried to download the tarball again and it's only 1KB!

There's something funny going on methinks.
--
- Mike Scott
- mscott (AT) pyewacket (DOT) org

dean
2005-01-13, 00:32
This problem should be fixed. It was a configuration issue on the new
web server.


On Jan 11, 2005, at 4:53 AM, Mike Scott wrote:

> On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 12:24, Dan Sully wrote:
>> * Mike Scott shaped the electrons to say...
>>
>>>>> Are you using the 'z' switch to untar the file?
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, of course.
>>>
>>> Sorry, didn't mean to imply anything, it's just that I've done that
>>> myself and gotten strange results. I just downloaded the tarball
>>> myself
>>> again and it does appear to be hosed (the copy I downloaded a couple
>>> of
>>> weeks ago is OK).
>>
>> It's likely that your browser already ungzipped the tarball when it
>> was
>> downloaded, so the 'z' switch is actually causing the problem.
>>
>> What does the output of 'file SlimServer_v5.4.0.tar.gz' look like?
>
> I don't think that's the case as I used Firefox on SuSE 9.1 both times
> and have never had this problem with other files. SD doesn't appear to
> have an FTP server so I have to download through the browser.
> Also the corrupt file is smaller than the good one.
> I tried both with and without the 'z' switch and got the same results.
>
> Is it possible that when the file was uploaded to the server it was not
> transferred using binary mode? Converting CR/LF pairs to LFs would
> account for the smaller file size as well as the corruption.
>
> Also, I just tried to download the tarball again and it's only 1KB!
>
> There's something funny going on methinks.
> --
> - Mike Scott
> - mscott (AT) pyewacket (DOT) org
>
>