LinuxQuestions.org
Latest LQ Deal: Linux Power User Bundle
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Newbie
User Name
Password
Linux - Newbie This Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question? If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 05-08-2008, 02:02 AM   #1
Honeysuckle
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Distribution: Puppy, debian
Posts: 118

Rep: Reputation: 15
Question Downloaded .txt files don't match checksum - ASCII? How to fix?


The situation
Using Filezilla, I downloaded to Windows the files for Slackware 12.1. Upon checking the MD5 checksums, all of the text files failed the check. (I didn't specify any settings in Filezilla - it just "did its thing". I didn't know before this that I might have had to specify binary or something.....)
What I've found out
Thinking it was odd that they'd all failed, I've done some googling and it seems that this may have something to do with the files or the checksums being ASCII and/or having "Windows" endings (CRLF) instead of linux (CR) or something like that (?) I tried MD5summer.exe and it gave the error message "The checksum file you have selected contains one or more ASCII generated sums"
My questions
Am I right to attribute the checksum failures to this reason, or could they really all be corrupt or tampered with?
As the files are the files that explain what the packages are, and the text can still be read, is it necessary to get matching checksums for those files or can I just ignore the errors? If I need to get them to match, what do I need to do and how do I do it? Thanks for any help.
 
Old 05-08-2008, 02:45 AM   #2
Simon Bridge
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Waiheke NZ
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 9,211

Rep: Reputation: 198Reputation: 198
Quote:
The checksum file you have selected contains one or more ASCII generated sums
That's not all it says is it?

What was the original fail message?

So long as you have not opened the files in windows, the difference between MS and unix text format will not matter. However, you should consider that the files may have been tampered with.

You can normally ignore errors like this when the files are being opened in a non-executing environment or if you trust the source.
 
Old 05-08-2008, 03:49 AM   #3
Honeysuckle
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Distribution: Puppy, debian
Posts: 118

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Bridge View Post
That's not all it says is it?
What was the original fail message?
That's the fail message - it only goes on to ask if you want to "ignore and continue", or cancel.

At first, I checked the MD5 checksums with a live Puppy Linux cd (I only had a program in Windows which does one file at a time and I only knew how to do the command line command to check against a big list in Puppy). Then, when I was looking for information about the failures, I found a reference to the MD5summer program (which will do a big list) and gave that a go in Windows, and got the additional information provided by its failure message.
Quote:
So long as you have not opened the files in windows, the difference between MS and unix text format will not matter.
The files were moved to an external drive before being checked - I don't know if that would have resulted in the files being "marked" as Windows/Ascii/.

Quote:
when the files are being opened in a non-executing environment
I'm a linux learner. Does non-executing environment translate to linux (you'd have to mark the file executable before it could execute??)

Thanks for the reply.
 
Old 05-08-2008, 06:00 AM   #4
Simon Bridge
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Waiheke NZ
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 9,211

Rep: Reputation: 198Reputation: 198
Does non-executing environment translate to linux[/quote]In effect, yes. You can also use a sandbox to isolate the files in Windows. You can use the commandline in windows to make sure only a basic text editor will be used to view them, etc.

Moving the files makes no difference as long as no windows app got to look inside.

Quote:
it only goes on to ask if you want to "ignore and continue"
Right.
 
Old 05-08-2008, 10:56 AM   #5
Honeysuckle
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Distribution: Puppy, debian
Posts: 118

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Bridge View Post
You can also use a sandbox to isolate the files in Windows. You can use the commandline in windows to make sure only a basic text editor will be used to view them, etc.
Well, it may generally be possible to sandbox etc., but I personally can't because I have no idea how to . (I'm trying to get enough info under my belt to be able to use a linux program instead and, if I succeed, I won't have to bother figuring things out in Windows. At the present rate of progress, it's looking unlikely.)

Quote:
Moving the files makes no difference as long as no windows app got to look inside.
I may have opened one to check where I was up to in the download, because I had to do it in more than one stage. I don't see how opening one (if I did, I don't remember) could change all 1,000 or however many there are.... I take it that there's no way of converting them back/changing them to whatever they are meant to be. I think I'll try to download again (in the right format) a couple that failed and see if they'll pass the check and, if that works out, download the failures again.

Thanks again.
 
Old 05-08-2008, 11:45 AM   #6
Simon Bridge
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Waiheke NZ
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 9,211

Rep: Reputation: 198Reputation: 198
Quote:
I don't see how opening one (if I did, I don't remember) could change all 1,000 or however many there are....
Nope... just the one. OK - I'll bite... what are you doing?!

Quote:
I'm trying to get enough info under my belt to be able to use a linux program instead
Which one?

Just ignore the checksums!
 
Old 05-08-2008, 01:52 PM   #7
Honeysuckle
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Distribution: Puppy, debian
Posts: 118

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Bridge View Post
Nope... just the one. OK - I'll bite... what are you doing?!
Do you mean what am I doing in relation to the downloading? I've downloaded a couple of the "failed files" again, selecting "binary" in Filezilla - that got them to pass the checksum test - I'll just download the failed ones again. "Why?" I hear you ask... The list of files is long - it'll be easier to see if any of the important files have been corrupted if all of the text files get a little green dot next to them and it's easier to redownload those than it is to check the list, and I'd also rather be sure there aren't any gremlins in there .
Quote:
Which one?
Whichever one (if any ) I can figure out sufficiently well.
 
Old 05-08-2008, 11:49 PM   #8
Simon Bridge
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Waiheke NZ
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 9,211

Rep: Reputation: 198Reputation: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Honeysuckle
Do you mean what am I doing in relation to the downloading?
No - what are you doing that involves downloading 1000s of txt files in order to figure out if you can use a "linux program"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Honeysuckle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Honeysuckle
I'm trying to get enough info under my belt to be able to use a linux program instead
Which one?
Whichever one (if any ) I can figure out sufficiently well.
You are looking for a distro?

Last edited by Simon Bridge; 05-08-2008 at 11:51 PM.
 
Old 05-09-2008, 12:11 AM   #9
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 7,151

Rep: Reputation: 2203Reputation: 2203Reputation: 2203Reputation: 2203Reputation: 2203Reputation: 2203Reputation: 2203Reputation: 2203Reputation: 2203Reputation: 2203Reputation: 2203
Yes, you are correct that Windows uses a CR/LF (character-pair) line terminator whereas Linux/Unix normally uses LF-only ... but what difference does that make here?

Unless there is a plausible reason to assume that the Windows program would have (a) actually understood the LF-only pattern and (b) would have replaced it with CR/LF for some reason ... don't assume that it did. In fact, I can pretty-much categorically assert that it did not.

If you got an MD5-error on a downloaded file ... download the file again.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 05-09-2008 at 12:13 AM.
 
Old 05-09-2008, 12:45 AM   #10
Simon Bridge
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Waiheke NZ
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 9,211

Rep: Reputation: 198Reputation: 198
Honeysuckle is concerned that there is some mechanism which is corrupting the files while or after they are downloaded. It is reasonable to suspect this is when 100% of 1000s of files fail their checksum.

The rest is a kind of free association.

If checksums only failed on txt files, then it is reasonable to ask if there is anything special about txt, and the way the host environment handles them, which would selectively corrupt them.

As it happens, it was the download options creating confusion.

Note: I have a Windows machine here which routinely "corrects" unix text documents if I open them in Wordpad. I don't need to do anything, just hit "save" - which it will prompt me to do.

I have known some configurations to warn the user when saving as plain text that formatting will be lost - never mind that there is no formatting to begin with. The message is quite firmly worded - to the effect that some newbies have been known to go 'oh yes, better keep the "formatting"...' When they see the file extension is now .DOC, they rename the file: 'to make it plain text again'. Now we have a plain text file with a whole lot of Word markup in it. Markup which instructs word to display with a fixed width font and literal formatting.

I have no idea how Windows gets into this state - there is a reasonably functioning default state which gets filtered through two or three techs and a dozen users. These machines are typically run by people who don't know how to use "save as" to change the document format in Word.

(Serious - I have received a word attachment from a tech in the NZ government, I asked for another format and the guy printed out the document, then scanned it to a jpeg, and sent that. I thought he was trying to make a point, but no...)

Anyway - well done to the honey-toungued one.
 
Old 05-09-2008, 12:52 AM   #11
Honeysuckle
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Distribution: Puppy, debian
Posts: 118

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Bridge View Post
You are looking for a distro?
I'll start with this one, because it may clarify your other question. Yes. I have been downloading different distros and having a look at them/playing with them and reading a lot as to how things are done/trying to do things/doing things, etc.

Quote:
No - what are you doing that involves downloading 1000s of txt files in order to figure out if you can use a "linux program"?
I'm downloading the new Slackware distro. There's no iso, you have to download a whole heap (like 7,000) of files. For each package/component/whatever-they-are-called, there's a tar file, a key file and a text file. All of the text files failed the checksum check because the Filezilla was set to ASCII not binary.
 
Old 05-09-2008, 01:01 AM   #12
Honeysuckle
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Distribution: Puppy, debian
Posts: 118

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
In fact, I can pretty-much categorically assert that it did not.
You are right - it was because the files were downloaded as ASCII not binary (mind you, I'm not too clear on what THAT means, but that's why it happened - nothing got "corrupted" by Windows)

Quote:
If you got an MD5-error on a downloaded file ... download the file again.
Yes, that's what I'm doing.

Thanks.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
YUM - Metadata file does not match checksum erolleman Fedora 3 06-15-2007 04:54 PM
metadata file does not match checksum ? anilbh Fedora 4 04-15-2007 01:08 PM
Every Distro I've downloaded has a different checksum. cmelliott1 Linux - Newbie 9 08-03-2006 02:28 PM
SUSE MD5 checksum for DVD ISO refuses to match tisource SUSE / openSUSE 1 02-07-2005 06:26 PM
Checksum did not match timmytytim Linux - Newbie 5 12-26-2004 02:22 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:59 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration