06 Nov 08 Forum

I have problems getting the latest version of Vortexbox 1.4 installed, despite the checksum tallying.

Each time it gets to the same point and halts with this message:-

"Vim-minimal-7.2.315-1.fc11.i586.rpm Cannot be opened due to missing file, corrupt package or corrupt media" . An option is given which brings up an instruction to insert Fedora Disc 1.

I've previously installed earlier versions of Vortexbox on similar machines without running into this type of problem, so is the current ISO image faulty? Please can Andrew look into this and advise.

Thanks

Brian

Andrew said:Sounds like a bad burn of the ISO. There have been thousands of installs done with this iso with no problems reported.

Hi Brian,

Is it possible that the CD that is causing a problem is not actually an ISO image?  That has happened to others, and the md5sum will tally correctly, but the CD will not work.  I doubt that's the problem, because, from your description, the install worked – to a point.

Hi Andrew,

If the md5sum checksum,  "311f1ab2025b32c13aca7fb80ca53dcf" posted here computes the same for Brian on his burned CD, and if that CD is truely an ISO image, how can it possibly be a bad burn?

Would it be worthwhile for you to revalidate the md5sum against the image on the server to ensure everything is OK?

Andrew said:Just because you have a good ISO image doesn't mean you won't have a bad burn. Brian said he tested the image againt the md5 and it was OK. So the image on the server and the one he has are both good.

Did you verify the CD to the image after burning? You can also have a bad batch of CDs that can't be read properly by your drive.

Andrew,

I'd like to understand this better.  Brian said that he burned the latest version of Vortexbox 1.4 , and the checksum tallyed.  I take it that means that he burned the CD and then generated an md5sum for that newly-burned CD on his machine, and the local md5sum was 311f1ab2025b32c13aca7fb80ca53dcf, the same as on this website.

My understanding is that the probability of creating the same md5sum from two different images is roughly 1/256,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.  Pretty small odds!  Md5sum is not perfect, and can be intentionally hacked, yet that is not the case here.

To restate:

Brian used the md5sum for its intended purpose.  –  He did verify the CD to the image after burning the CD.

Can you help explain how the posted md5sum and the CD's md5sum can be the same and the CD is not valid?  Maybe it's the 1/256,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 case?