This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Why package cache is not used during setup download?
- From: Aleksey Midenkov <midenok at gmail dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:34:10 +0300
- Subject: Re: Why package cache is not used during setup download?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAF8BazAy7x2Nxeb6P=ns7=Dy5ENzd=Cg0oKxJjDtBg0JzGjM-g at mail dot gmail dot com> <133366775 dot 20151025170018 at yandex dot ru> <CAF8BazBBFrCdPLJMw2ZiuSx_syLLqq7MMwWrsCM+CqE8Y9e4Tw at mail dot gmail dot com> <190443388 dot 20151026144831 at yandex dot ru>
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Andrey Repin <email@example.com> wrote:
> Greetings, Aleksey Midenkov!
>>>> Cygwin setup process my turn to endless retry-error on bad internet
>>>> channels, because:
>>>> 1. setup doesn't know how to retry download (why it fails to download anyway?);
>>> Because your internet is bad?
>> On the second thought I believe that the problem is with setup.exe
>> itself. Because:
>> a) I tried different mirrors. It always fails in somewhere between
>> 80-90% (of total progress).
>> b) I never noticed any problems with downloading files except with
>> Cygwin. Gigabyte-sized files via http are downloading without fail.
> If you get consistent results from different mirrors (and since you're the
> only person reporting it), my second thought is that it is a local issue.
> Overly zealous antivirus/firewall coming to mind.
I remember this was also happening long time ago (about 10 years or
more) in completely different environment of course. Anyway, local
problem with *Cygwin-only* means problem with Cygwin. I rarely use
Cygwin and when I use it, I always stumble upon this. Maybe there is
another reason of why you don't know of other complaints.
>>>> 2. setup doesn't use cache of previously downloaded files and always
>>>> redownload all packages from the beginning.
>>> It do use cache, if checksum is correct.
>> Hmmm, on setup.ini doc says:
>> install: filename size-in-bytes MD5 sum
> As David pointed out already, MD5 hash proven weak and is no longer used in
> sensitive environments.
I don't need to know who the David is and what he pointed out. But
what does this mean in core, the documentation is wrong and checksum
is done with different algorithm?
> With best regards,
> Andrey Repin
> Monday, October 26, 2015 14:45:39
> Sorry for my terrible english...
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple