similar to: Re: CentOS-5.0-x86_64-bin-DVD-ich9.iso.delta md5 mismatch

> David wrote: > Now there are right md5sums and even > x86_64 iso.delta. > David I tried using applydeltaiso and it creates a 2gb ISO but I notice it fails on applying. kdnssd-avahi-devel.i386: copying unchanged payload kernel-xen.x86_64 (???): applying delta new payload open failed __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has

Michael Rock napsal(a): > Hi Dave, > > I am using applydeltaiso with your delta and > CentOS-5.0-x86_64-bin-DVD.iso 4,186,786 bytes from one > of the Centos mirrors. But the block size is wrong and > does not match the image length. > > So I checked the md5 on your delta and it does not > match your md5.txt file. I downloaded it again to be > sure. > > Your

David wrote: >I'll test DVD tomorrow. Today new kernel RPMS are > being built. What ptions are you talking about? > David all-generic-ide irqpoll Without irqpoll it just hangs and without all-generic-ide it get a kernel panic. So I still need both to recognize the disk and continue booting. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo!

Hi all, I've the same problem, I've download the CentOS-5.0-x86_64-bin-DVD.iso from one centos mirror, i've applied deltaiso and the created image is 2 GB, the md5sum check of iso.delta (CentOS-5.0-x86_64-bin-DVD-ich9.iso.delta) is ok, what's wrong ? deltaiso program exit on the same as Michael , maybe I've downloaded the worng DVD 64 bit iso version? do you know any good

> WELCOME TO MY WORLD :D > (Hey, are the new foobar packages done, how about the xwyz packages) > Thanks, > JOhnny Hughes When you snip the rest of my post man that last request sounds really bad on its own. Sorry guys. I saw the "uploading the new DVD's" a few days ago and thought I would ask. I really do not want to put anyone out and please do not go through any

Oops sorry, ugh another poor selection of words as I meant to say "When I saw the rest of my post snipped, I then realized that last request sounds really bad, which was not my intention. > When you snip the rest of my post man that last > request sounds really bad on its own. Sorry guys. I > saw the "uploading the new DVD's" a few days ago and > thought I would

Michael Rock napsal(a): > all-generic-ide irqpoll > > Without irqpoll it just hangs and without > all-generic-ide it get a kernel panic. So I still > need both to recognize the disk and continue booting. > Michael, > I have tested 8.1.14 ICH9 x86_64 version and it's kring fine. For sure > im right now uploading full DVD isos. I did not want to :o( due due to >

Hi, full ICH9 support for Centos 5 can be found http://fs12.vsb.cz/hrb33/pub/ Take it as a workaround until CentOS 5.1 is released. I hope ICH9 to be included in this version. Support is done by backporting from new kernel versions. Delta file is created with mkdeltaiso from CentOS-5.0-i386-bin-DVD.iso, so full image can be created with applydeltaiso. Regards, David Hrb??

I'd suggest looking around the ifcfg-eth* files (somewhere in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts I think) nad commenting out HWADDR= lines, if that works, then try reversing the HWADDR lines - this will reverse the numbers of the ethernet cards (ie making eth0 eth1 and eth1 eth0) but should result in a stable configuration till next hardware change. And you problem? IMHO, when the system

I am enclosing scripts and config files to generate exact copy of CentOS 5.0 i386 installation DVD image, that is CentOS-5.0-i386-bin-DVD.iso if you have CD images for i386. If there is interest I can post the same for x86_64. Please follow README files for instructions. All the scripts are GPL. SHA1 for attached files: 439f7b0bd50722388a2836eedafeb1c227f97385 *00_README.txt

I have 2 new boxes that I cannot use yet because of problems supporting these newer chipsets in 5.1. Does anyone know when the CD version of 5.0 x86-64 that has support for these chipsets be available on any on a Centos mirror? Has the support for these chipsets been added to yum yet? Here are my latest results with these chipsets and Centos 5.1 1. Asus P5K, E6850, P35 Chipset: Does not

Hi All, I found it very difficult to get Xen-3.1 up on a a machine with Intel''s ICH9 family of disk controllers :-(. Is the ICH9 support really there in xen-3.2 ? I tried but was not successful in booting even xen-3.2 from xen.org. Did anyone have a success? Or any help on what extra config options I need to pass while compiling a domain0 from xen sources? Thanks, -- Pradeep Singh

Hi, Well, ICH9 support for CentOS as announced on Oct 16th by me http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2007-October/088104.html has been extended. Today I have published x86_64 install DVD. You can find it here: http://fs12.vsb.cz/hrb33/pub/ich9/ Regards, David Hrb??

You get so used to yum upgrades going so smoothly but I learned the hard way to always make a thorough inspection after a yum update. I let yum go ahead and upgrade from 3.5 to 3.6. Afterwards I made some basic queries to httpd, postfix and bind named (probably a cached query). I even checked the /var/named/ directory and saw all my hosts files. So looked like another smooth ride, well until

CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2014:1827 Moderate Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2014-1827.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename ) x86_64: c470c0139168de6ef581767dde439c8dbc2b196c897d14e8b5c6336b4f6f564c kdenetwork-4.10.5-8.el7_0.x86_64.rpm

This is a follow-on to the "SQL field format for digest-md5?" thread. After some additional debugging, I've found the problem is a mismatch in what Dovecot expects and Postfix uses for the user and realm. For a username "user at example.com" and password "sekret", Dovecot expects: username = "user" realm = "example.com" but Postfix sends

--- Brian Willoughby <brianw at sounds.wa.com> wrote: My suggestion is to first gather more information, by learning how to confirm whether an MD5 Signature even exists in these files before continuing to determine the reason for the mismatch. Maybe someone else has more information. --- end of quote --- Thanks for the response. He sent me a link to the files here:

--- Brian Willoughby <brianw at sounds.wa.com> wrote: There are no uncompressed files here, so it's difficult to discover what you need to know. --- end of quote --- I've asked him for the uncompressed first track to see what the correct md5 should be --- Brian Willoughby <brianw at sounds.wa.com> wrote: This could be an uploading problem. There are still too many

2007/7/25, Josh Coalson <xflac@yahoo.com>: > > --- Harry Sack <tranzedude@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2007/7/25, Harry Sack <tranzedude@gmail.com>: > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > I have downloaded a FLAC file somewhere and when trying to decode > > it to > > > WAV it gives the error message: ERROR, MD5 signature mismatch >

--- Harry Sack <tranzedude@gmail.com> wrote: > 2007/7/27, Josh Coalson <xflac@yahoo.com>: > > > > > > > But how is it possible then the FLAC encoder allows files which > have > > > a bad > > > resulting MD5 to be encoded? Is it because of the bad ram, ... > this > > > incorrect MD5 is not detected during encoding? > > >