FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 10-28-2011, 08:25 AM
Andre Robatino
 
Default Who to ask about old Red Hat Linux ISOs I've uncovered

The site http://legacy.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/ has some old Red Hat Linux
content. Unfortunately, it's very incomplete. I have archives of the install
discs going back at least to RH 7.0. (I started on RH 6.0 so might have
something older around.) I was able to read off all of these, which have the
following md5sums. There are discrepancies between them and the ones listed on
the archive site. For example, for RH 9, the archive site has a signed checksum
file which shows

34048ce4cd069b624f6e021ba63ecde5 shrike-i386-disc1.iso

while my md5sum for RH9_1of3.iso is 400c7fb292c73b793fb722532abd09ad. Googling
for my md5sum indicates that it is correct. So why does the RH9 signed checksum
file (which, although the signature is good, was signed on 2003/09/11, months
after RH9's release) have a different checksum? There are similar discrepancies
for other ISOs.

626b7d18033e320c27c8cd58cc37a288 RH7.0_1of2.iso
c9899d398ca675c1e80a7bdb68d701bf RH7.0_2of2.iso
596b1575773e88e066326f6741312a6f RH7.1_1of2.iso
f27b912299572a542cd663b712444445 RH7.1_2of2.iso
cf7bce0c1cdbfedfae29e60aef202f6f RH7.2_1of2.iso
fd705b3e5d0e37a828db35d21195a9f6 RH7.2_2of2.iso
cb91810ce8173039fed24420407e4c59 RH7.3_1of3.iso
ec1b813d32ffdc8edc2be261735d17de RH7.3_2of3.iso
5dc81ce523cfddf99b4d4d63e91bcaa7 RH7.3_3of3.iso
d7b16b081c20708dc0dd7d41793a4177 RH8.0_1of5.iso
2df17bc02cb1b3316930ed4f7601ad9e RH8.0_2of5.iso
305d6ff5b5850fa316276710a148b0a3 RH8.0_3of5.iso
0a77d7a3bc8c4e87508c46a2670242eb RH8.0_4of5.iso
8dbcf16f0072ee47db49b08921a41ba5 RH8.0_5of5.iso
88b9baba392b02b534a6fa546bcae3de RH8.0_docs.iso
400c7fb292c73b793fb722532abd09ad RH9_1of3.iso
6b8ba42f56b397d536826c78c9679c0a RH9_2of3.iso
af38ac4316ba20df2dec5f990913396d RH9_3of3.iso

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 10-28-2011, 08:45 AM
Joachim Backes
 
Default Who to ask about old Red Hat Linux ISOs I've uncovered

On 10/28/2011 10:25 AM, Andre Robatino wrote:
> The site http://legacy.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/ has some old Red Hat Linux
> content. Unfortunately, it's very incomplete. I have archives of the install
> discs going back at least to RH 7.0. (I started on RH 6.0 so might have
> something older around.) I was able to read off all of these, which have the
> following md5sums. There are discrepancies between them and the ones listed on
> the archive site. For example, for RH 9, the archive site has a signed checksum
> file which shows
>
> 34048ce4cd069b624f6e021ba63ecde5 shrike-i386-disc1.iso

That is the sha1sum, not md5sum! (see on the page header: Hash: SHA1)

>
> while my md5sum for RH9_1of3.iso is 400c7fb292c73b793fb722532abd09ad. Googling
> for my md5sum indicates that it is correct. So why does the RH9 signed checksum
> file (which, although the signature is good, was signed on 2003/09/11, months
> after RH9's release) have a different checksum? There are similar discrepancies
> for other ISOs.
>
> 626b7d18033e320c27c8cd58cc37a288 RH7.0_1of2.iso
> c9899d398ca675c1e80a7bdb68d701bf RH7.0_2of2.iso
> 596b1575773e88e066326f6741312a6f RH7.1_1of2.iso
> f27b912299572a542cd663b712444445 RH7.1_2of2.iso
> cf7bce0c1cdbfedfae29e60aef202f6f RH7.2_1of2.iso
> fd705b3e5d0e37a828db35d21195a9f6 RH7.2_2of2.iso
> cb91810ce8173039fed24420407e4c59 RH7.3_1of3.iso
> ec1b813d32ffdc8edc2be261735d17de RH7.3_2of3.iso
> 5dc81ce523cfddf99b4d4d63e91bcaa7 RH7.3_3of3.iso
> d7b16b081c20708dc0dd7d41793a4177 RH8.0_1of5.iso
> 2df17bc02cb1b3316930ed4f7601ad9e RH8.0_2of5.iso
> 305d6ff5b5850fa316276710a148b0a3 RH8.0_3of5.iso
> 0a77d7a3bc8c4e87508c46a2670242eb RH8.0_4of5.iso
> 8dbcf16f0072ee47db49b08921a41ba5 RH8.0_5of5.iso
> 88b9baba392b02b534a6fa546bcae3de RH8.0_docs.iso
> 400c7fb292c73b793fb722532abd09ad RH9_1of3.iso
> 6b8ba42f56b397d536826c78c9679c0a RH9_2of3.iso
> af38ac4316ba20df2dec5f990913396d RH9_3of3.iso
>


--
Joachim Backes <joachim.backes@rhrk.uni-kl.de>

http://www.rhrk.uni-kl.de/~backes

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 10-28-2011, 08:53 AM
Andre Robatino
 
Default Who to ask about old Red Hat Linux ISOs I've uncovered

Joachim Backes <joachim.backes <at> rhrk.uni-kl.de> writes:

> > 34048ce4cd069b624f6e021ba63ecde5 shrike-i386-disc1.iso
>
> That is the sha1sum, not md5sum! (see on the page header: Hash: SHA1)

No, that's the md5sum (as the length confirms). The hash checksum type in
general is different from the ISO checksum type.

BTW, I uncovered a RH 6.1 disc. The md5sum is

6133c755afdc56879e4b50f6986ce926 RH6.1_1of1.iso

which googling indicates is also correct. The archive site has nothing for 6.1
at all.

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 10-28-2011, 09:05 AM
Andy Blanchard
 
Default Who to ask about old Red Hat Linux ISOs I've uncovered

IIRC, it wasn't uncommon for Red Hat to re-issue ISOs several months after the initial release to include all of the patches to date, so perhaps both sets of hashes are correct, but one is for the original and one is for the re-spin?* This was when many Linux users were reliant on modems, LUGs and even mail order to acquire the latest ISOs, so not having to download several tens of MB worth of patches was a big deal.


If you compare the latest dated RPM on the CD you have with the original release date for that version then you should be able to determine which is which - if the date is before the release then it's the original ISO, after the release then it's a re-spin.


Regards,

--
Andy

The only person to have all his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 10-28-2011, 09:10 AM
Andre Robatino
 
Default Who to ask about old Red Hat Linux ISOs I've uncovered

That makes sense - my discs were downloaded and burned, so they are probably the
original versions.




--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 10-28-2011, 10:56 AM
Marko Vojinovic
 
Default Who to ask about old Red Hat Linux ISOs I've uncovered

On Friday 28 October 2011 09:25:10 Andre Robatino wrote:
> The site http://legacy.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/ has some old Red Hat
> Linux content. Unfortunately, it's very incomplete. I have archives of the
> install discs going back at least to RH 7.0. (I started on RH 6.0 so might
> have something older around.)

On a side note, I also have original CD's of the RH 6.2 installation (binary
and source), which was readable. The iso image I created from the CD has the
correct hash.

However, the damn thing fails to install in a virtual machine. I use
VirtualBox, but have tried EQMU and VMware as well, with the same results. The
anaconda installer bombs out with a traceback in the middle of the
installation, each time in a different place. Sometimes it almost gets to the
end, but it never installed completely.

I am puzlled by what might be wrong, since I used to install that distro
successfully back in the day on physical hardware. I tried to do a minimal
install (hoping to avoid the traceback), tweaked the installation parameters
(partitions, choice of packages, etc.), all to no effect. I also tried tweaking
the vm specs to look more like typical hardware back then, without success.
Google didn't help either.

Does anyone have any ideas?

Best, :-)
Marko

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 10-28-2011, 12:52 PM
fred smith
 
Default Who to ask about old Red Hat Linux ISOs I've uncovered

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:56:51AM +0100, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> On Friday 28 October 2011 09:25:10 Andre Robatino wrote:
> > The site http://legacy.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/ has some old Red Hat
> > Linux content. Unfortunately, it's very incomplete. I have archives of the
> > install discs going back at least to RH 7.0. (I started on RH 6.0 so might
> > have something older around.)
>
> On a side note, I also have original CD's of the RH 6.2 installation (binary
> and source), which was readable. The iso image I created from the CD has the
> correct hash.
>
> However, the damn thing fails to install in a virtual machine. I use
> VirtualBox, but have tried EQMU and VMware as well, with the same results. The
> anaconda installer bombs out with a traceback in the middle of the
> installation, each time in a different place. Sometimes it almost gets to the
> end, but it never installed completely.
>

I recall there being some iuncompatibility between rh 6.x and newr (P4)
processors. or some similar issue, at least, such that I was not able to
run 6.3 in a vmware workstation VM on a P4 box.

> I am puzlled by what might be wrong, since I used to install that distro
> successfully back in the day on physical hardware. I tried to do a minimal
> install (hoping to avoid the traceback), tweaked the installation parameters
> (partitions, choice of packages, etc.), all to no effect. I also tried tweaking
> the vm specs to look more like typical hardware back then, without success.
> Google didn't help either.
>
> Does anyone have any ideas?
>
> Best, :-)
> Marko
>
> --
> users mailing list
> users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines

--
---- Fred Smith -- fredex@fcshome.stoneham.ma.us -----------------------------
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of
heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
------------------------------ Matthew 7:21 (niv) -----------------------------
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:30 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org