| NekitaNet | Hi all, was in yesterday and figured out the issue I'm having installing a fresh install of any Ubuntu version after Focal; The repo packages are being compresses by libzstd1 and that has a know bug throwing bad checksums; It seems these bad checksums have crept into the repositories and make installing (atm) for example linux-lowlatency, | 17:01 |
|---|---|---|
| NekitaNet | nvidia-driver-525 and packages within xubuntu-desktop error prone or even impossible. Yes, my system is tested for function; perfect storage, memory, perfect CPU (with now some new cooling paste) and a good motherboard; It's a known bug for people who work with large numbers of zstd compressed files. | 17:01 |
| cjwatson | It sounds very unlikely that you'd be the first to have noticed this if it's been that way for years ... but at any rate you'd want to report that on Launchpad so that it can be analysed | 17:07 |
| NekitaNet | I would think so as well cjwatson; However; going by my experience (with now a fresh install of Focul that installed without issue, since the repo | 17:40 |
| NekitaNet | ..since the repo's employ xz and not zstd only after Focul) it's clear there's something up and wrong. Either with dpkg, the libzstd1 library used to compress debs on the repo side; Both post Focul. | 17:42 |
| NekitaNet | Well, there's a typo; zstd and not xz compression after Focul | 17:42 |
| NekitaNet | Anyway; I'm back on Focul for that machine. Would have liked to enjoy the benefits of 22.04, but having a working machine after futzing about for 3+ evenings is more important right now. | 17:44 |
| cjwatson | Certainly not a mirror issue, and I've been running post-focal (not focul) for years. | 17:45 |
| cjwatson | I'm very confident that we don't have bad checksums in the repository to this sort of extent. | 17:45 |
| cjwatson | I believe you that you're seeing something wrong - I just don't think that particular diagnosis is probable given the number of entities (both human and machine) that would have had to miss it for years. | 17:46 |
| NekitaNet | My (the official) dpkg checksum checks tell me different for enough critical packages! :-) | 17:46 |
| cjwatson | File a bug¬ | 17:46 |
| cjwatson | With as many details as you can | 17:47 |
| NekitaNet | Well, the human response has been clear: It's very very very likely (just) your system! | 17:47 |
| cjwatson | dpkg's checksum checks may also not be quite what you think they are | 17:47 |
| cjwatson | Depending on exactly what you mean | 17:48 |
| NekitaNet | I'm not going to redefine words with you hahaha :) | 17:48 |
| cjwatson | dpkg --verify in particular can be a bit strange around things like conffiles | 17:48 |
| cjwatson | I'm not asking to play word games, just to be precise | 17:49 |
| cjwatson | (But it's also Friday evening here and pretty much finishing-up time ...) | 17:49 |
| NekitaNet | In a nutshell; there was a changeover for the Ubuntu debs on the repo's and dpkg was altered to switch over from xz to zstd compression. libzstd1 (as used to create those debs) is known to generate bad checksums once in a while. I'm just lucky enough to install enough critical debs so the entire install is borked. | 17:52 |
| NekitaNet | Unlikely yes, did it happen (and did I not believe what I was seeing, even doubting my own hardware) yes. | 17:53 |
| NekitaNet | From what I've read surrounding package builders and repo creators they just lowered the debug level when creating the checksum for the packages; That doesn't mean there's not there; Just the likelyhood of them being critical is not high. | 17:55 |
| NekitaNet | Anyways, enjoy your evening and weekend | 17:55 |
| NekitaNet | Btw, one more point; Why am I not getting the same errors on 20.04 that's using xz compressed packages while I am getting them on every thing after that release that's libzstd1 compressed? Same hardware eh ;-) Once again: Have a great weekend. | 18:02 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!