Some good labelling system so we know it is xubuntu-gutsy-alternate rather than ubuntu

[vidd]

Adam Miller wrote:
> Its strange that those two text files yield the same md5sum because i 
> have had many iso images have different md5sum hashes after their 
> names have been changed ... its rather possible it was a fluke ... i 
> will investigate further and if i am wrong, i apologize for 
> distributing false information.
>
> -Adam
>
> On 6/15/07, *shirish* <shirishag75 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:shirishag75 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     > Message: 5
>     > Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:56:33 -0500
>     > From: "Jim Campbell" <jwcampbell at gmail.com
>     <mailto:jwcampbell at gmail.com>>
>     > Subject: Re: Some good labelling system so we know it is
>     >         xubuntu-gutsy-alternate rather than ubuntu
>     > To: "Xubuntu Development Discussion"
>     <xubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
>     <mailto:xubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com>>
>     > Message-ID:
>     >        
>     <cc5454020706142056j65983326g7b77e37696c97ceb at mail.gmail.com
>     <mailto:cc5454020706142056j65983326g7b77e37696c97ceb at mail.gmail.com>>
>     > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>     <snipped>
>
>     > I don't think that adding the dates would be the way to go just
>     because some
>     > people use rsync to update their images to the latest
>     version.  It saves
>     > them download time, and also saves some bandwidth.  The
>     rsync-updating
>     > approach wouldn't work if there were different time-stamped file
>     names for
>     > each new image.
>     >
>     > Also, if someone needs to verify the date of their image for
>     some reason,
>     > they could just check the md5sum.  I think there's even a
>     date-related file
>     > included in the ISO image somewhere, but I don't recall what it
>     is off-hand.
>     >
>     > I'll bring this iso-filename matter up to the team that builds
>     the images
>     > soon.  I'll try to see if there's been any discussion on this
>     elsewhere
>     > first, though.  I have to imagine that it's come up
>     before...  Maybe there's
>     > a reason for it being the way it is.
>     >
>     > Jim
>     > --
>     > jwcampbell at gmail.com <mailto:jwcampbell at gmail.com>
>
>     I would be interested to know if you do find anything if such a
>     discussion took place before for I'm sure they had this same issue
>     when kubuntu was launched or should have been unless they had
>     seperate
>     repositories or some other means of differentiation that we have no
>     idea about. Thanx for reminding me of rsync though :P
>
>     --
>               Shirish Agarwal
>       This email is licensed under
>     http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
>
>     065C 6D79 A68C E7EA 52B3  8D70 950D 53FB 729A 8B17
>
>     --
>     xubuntu-devel mailing list
>     xubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com <mailto:xubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com>
>     https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AdamMiller 
It is strange....
I attempted to see if i can mimic the action by making a dummy ISO and 
downloading it to see if whatever makes the (2).iso actually changed the 
data in the .iso . It would appear there is some coding that makes 
duplicate copies NOT overwrite the original, and change the name 
instead. This is NOT typical download behavior....the default is to 
always overwrite, rename, or cancel. What ever is causing the files to 
rename themselves is probably also changing the md5sum.