From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Mar 24 16: 6:22 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from larryboy.graphics.cornell.edu (larryboy.graphics.cornell.edu [128.84.247.48]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDC0037B771 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:06:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mkc@larryboy.graphics.cornell.edu) Received: from larryboy.graphics.cornell.edu (mkc@localhost) by larryboy.graphics.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA36595; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 19:06:18 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mkc@larryboy.graphics.cornell.edu) Message-Id: <200003250006.TAA36595@larryboy.graphics.cornell.edu> To: "Allen Pulsifer" Cc: "freebsd-questions@FreeBSD. ORG" Subject: Re: Is 4.0-iso checksum right? [was: iso-image ] In-Reply-To: Message from "Allen Pulsifer" of "Fri, 24 Mar 2000 15:09:49 EST." Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 19:06:18 -0500 From: Mitch Collinsworth Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >I started a download from ftp.freebsd.org this Tues, and it took about >24 hours to complete. The checksum matched up ok, but it looks like >the ISO image has changed since then. yep, that's it. my checksum matches the old file. guess I should have grabbed the checksum file first. :-) I hadn't notice the date change. That's one thing that just doesn't make sense to me about the way fbsd releases are being managed. I have absolutely no problem with the release being re-done for just about any reason they think is justifiable. But there really should be a field somewhere in the version/release number to allow distinguishing between one and another. Anything that's important enough to warrant re-issueing the release is obviously important enough to have a number to indicate the version you have has that revision in it. -Mitch To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message