[GRLUG] Hash Sum Mismatch

[Greg Folkert]

On Wed, 2008-01-16 at 21:19 -0500, Bob Kline wrote:
> I installed Kubuntu 7.10 on a new
> machine, and started to install some
> packages using apt-get.  Seems most
> to everything I asked for got the 
> response "insert system media," or words
> to that effect, and then I invariably would 
> get "Hash Sum Mismatch."
> 
> Looking on the web,  I discover this is a
> common problem.  One solution was 
> something like:
> 
> Patient:  Doctor, it hurts when I do this.
> 
> Doctor:  Don't do that. 
> 
> In this case the suggestion was to comment
> out the line in /etc/apt/sources.list having to
> do with the CDROM.
> 
> That did in fact cure most of what was ailing
> things, but it still seems like a bug, cured by 
> what M$ would call a patch.

Really, how would you make that leap?

Explain to me how this would be comparable to a patch from Microsoft?

Better yet, let tell you how it is NOT comparable.

The fact that you have Internet connectivity, means that you have more than likely gotten an updated set of "package lists and checksums" from the Ubuntu repositories.

And the fact that you had the CD/DVD in the drive after you checked/updated. And *SINCE* you had updated your list, the first source listed is typically the CD/DVD... but wait the Checksums have been updated from online sources... but the installation program grabs the first available... being the CD/DVD with it being wrong size/calculated value.


> Anyone know in any detail what "Hash Sum
> Mismatch" is saying?  It sounds like a corrupt
> DVD, but then the OS appears to have installed
> without problems.
> 
> I have no particular desire to get to the CDROM, 
> because the newest stuff will not be there, but I'd
> still like to have a better idea what is going on.

And Bob, stop telling stories. With no particular desire for the CDROM, why even worry about it then. The CDROM image passes it checksum, but only after you effectively "apt-get update" does the problem even rear its head.

The real problem is where the installation program looks for things and what it grabs. Being a simple error in the installer (or as you said a bug).

But wait a PATCH is typically a replacement program or set of libraries, or some other kind of programming reference file.

No, this particular problem would be "windows registry hack" equivalent, not a patch. Quit thinking that Linux is Windows. It isn't even close to being that bad.

Modifying a config file as a workaround? Feh, don't even begin to make me laugh, Microsoft's workarounds for these kinds of things are HUGE and unwieldy, where as putting in a simple "octothorpe" in front of the "source" line fixed this.

I guess, I just never quite understand your never ending inability to see things wrongly.

Yes, for those that care, this is harsh, but there is a point. If you don't know, then learn.
-- 
greg at gregfolkert.net
PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0  2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Alternate Fingerprint: 09F9 1102 9D74  E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0
Alternate Fingerprint: 455F E104 22CA  29C4 933F 9505 2B79 2AB2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://shinobu.grlug.org/pipermail/grlug/attachments/20080116/beae3296/attachment-0001.pgp