On Jun 03 16:42:58, Uwe Dippel wrote: > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Tony Abernethy <t...@servasoftware.com> wrote: > > > The error message(s) you are suppressing (or maybe didn't see) > > > > About the only way you can get some files but not all files > > from a tarball is some fatal error in the extraction of the > > tarball. Any such error tends to give an error message. > > I don't think this list likes to play guessing games as to exactly > > what mistakes you have made or what evidence you are suppressing. > > Oh, how beautiful! This is a sign of mutual trust. I documented > everything from the first pfctl after reboot from upgrade not working, > for what I am chided; and still, I am supposed to 'suppress evidence'. > How nice of you! > And if I present a serial log, I will have been suspected to have > tempered with it?
Where is the complete serial log of the install and subsequent md5 checks? Because that's the only way anybody can see what really happened, you know. > But to start kind of asking for 'proof', that's what's ridiculous, to > cite Theo. No. You claim the installer of 4.7 installs some, but not all, of the files in the install sets; or that some of the files instal 4.7 install sets are actually 4.6 files, according to their md5 hashes. That's what's highly suspectible (if not ridiculous). Don't be surprised that people want to be sure this actually happened before they invest time into investigating it. > I am willing to give individuals unprivileged access to the > boxes, I did this before, to look around. That's not a substitute for the complete, unedited serial log of everything that happend from the moment you put an official CD in to the moment you run the md5 test (included). Having root account on your machine will not give me this information. > I fully agree that what I report sounds highly unlikely. But it is > true, and by now I confirmed exactly the same having happened on that > other box (i386), Where's the two complete serial logs? > If I suppressed anything, why should I add to the > improbability? Yes, it happened, and I applied the same method and > have by now tar xzvphf-ed the 70+ sbin-files that were there and - That were _where_? Do you claim that the base47.tgz file contains 4.6 versions of certain files in /sbin? Where exactly does this strange base47.tgz file come from? > identically to the previous amd64 - are from version 4.6. > It is not excluded, as I wrote earlier, that the upgrade itself does > everything 100% correct. Who knows, there can always be a rogue > package. Not that I'm saying this has happened, but theoretically, any > package could contain 4.6-files and write them back at pkg_add. Packages install under /usr/local and don't interfere with files from a base install. Jan
