From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Mar 15 16:34:37 2016 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Mar 2016 20:34:37 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49444 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1afvfo-0004cE-RD for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:34:37 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:50846) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1afvP3-0004Bg-Hd for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:17:18 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1afvOx-0002ih-Ey for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:17:12 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD, HTML_MESSAGE,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:52100) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1afvOx-0002ib-BZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:17:11 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41778) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1afvOs-0006rc-Os for bug-gzip@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:17:10 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1afvOp-0002h3-Fy for bug-gzip@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:17:06 -0400 Received: from e17.ny.us.ibm.com ([129.33.205.207]:43760) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1afvOp-0002gm-Al for bug-gzip@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:17:03 -0400 Received: from localhost by e17.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:17:02 -0400 Received: from d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (9.56.250.167) by e17.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.204) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:17:00 -0400 X-IBM-Helo: d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com X-IBM-MailFrom: kgollap@us.ibm.com X-IBM-RcptTo: bug-gzip@gnu.org Received: from b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.23]) by d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEF626E8045 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:03:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u2FKH0Kf17367046 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 20:17:00 GMT Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u2FKH0Lg030716 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:17:00 -0400 Received: from d50lp02.ny.us.ibm.com (d50lp02.pok.ibm.com [146.89.104.208]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id u2FKGxd1030656 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:16:59 -0400 Message-Id: <201603152016.u2FKGxd1030656@d01av01.pok.ibm.com> Received: from localhost by d50lp02.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:16:59 -0400 Received: from smtp.notes.na.collabserv.com (192.155.248.81) by d50lp02.ny.us.ibm.com (158.87.18.21) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256/256) Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:16:58 -0400 X-IBM-Helo: smtp.notes.na.collabserv.com X-IBM-MailFrom: kgollap@us.ibm.com X-IBM-RcptTo: bug-gzip@gnu.org Received: from /spool/local by smtp.notes.na.collabserv.com with smtp.notes.na.collabserv.com ESMTP for from ; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 20:16:56 -0000 Received: from us1a3-smtp03.a3.dal06.isc4sb.com (10.106.154.98) by smtp.notes.na.collabserv.com (10.106.227.88) with smtp.notes.na.collabserv.com ESMTP; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 20:16:55 -0000 Received: from us1a3-mail53.a3.dal06.isc4sb.com ([10.106.154.193]) by us1a3-smtp03.a3.dal06.isc4sb.com with ESMTP id 2016031520165450-437543 ; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 20:16:54 +0000 Subject: Compatibility between 1.3.3 gzip'ed file and Gzip 1.3.12 To: bug-gzip@gnu.org From: "Kishan c Gollapudi" Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:16:54 -0800 X-KeepSent: 8681D4A5:B88D0FD4-00257F77:006DA45C; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: IBM Notes Release 9.0.1FP5 SHF106 December 12, 2015 X-LLNOutbound: False X-Disclaimed: 51387 X-TNEFEvaluated: 1 Content-type: multipart/alternative; Boundary="0__=8FBBF5E4DFFE22CC8f9e8a93df938690918c8FBBF5E4DFFE22CC" Content-Disposition: inline x-cbid: 16031520-0041-0000-0000-000003985A01 X-IBM-ISS-SpamDetectors: Score=0.423878; BY=0.117057; FL=0; FP=0; FZ=0; HX=0; KW=0; PH=0; SC=0.423878; ST=0; TS=0; UL=0; ISC= X-IBM-ISS-DetailInfo: BY=3.00005040; HX=3.00000240; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000150; SDB=6.00673819; UDB=6.00308282; UTC=2016-03-15 20:16:55 x-cbparentid: 16031520-4536-0000-0000-000006A96568 X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -3.8 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:34:36 -0400 Cc: Cecile Madsen X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.8 (---) --0__=8FBBF5E4DFFE22CC8f9e8a93df938690918c8FBBF5E4DFFE22CC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, I have a question that maybe a bug or not. We ship a product that installs using gzip. the product name is IBM=5FDataReplDash=5F11.3.3.0=5FLinux=5Fx86.bin. Our build machine that build our product is linux enterprise red hat 6.6 sentiago which includes gzip 1.3.12 (output of gzip -V is 1.3.12). We have a customer who installed our product and has the version gzip 1.3.3 and who gets the following error even though the download was done in binary format. Problem Description/Reason for Collaboration: When customer tried to install latest dashboard using IBM=5FDataReplDash=5F11.3.3.0=5FLinux=5Fx86.bin, he gets the following error: Preparing to install... Extracting the JRE from the installer archive... Unpacking the JRE... gzip: /tmp/install.dir.24732/Linux/resource/vm.tar.Z: invalid compressed data--crc error /tmp/install.dir.24732/Linux/resource/vm.tar. Z: not in compressed format gzip: /tmp/install.dir. 24732/Linux/resource/vm.tar.Z: invalid compressed data--crc error The included VM could not be uncompressed (GZIP/UNCOMPRESS). Please try to download the installer again and make sure that you download using 'binary' mode. Please do not attempt to install this currently downloaded copy File permission bits is set to 777 for IBM=5FDataReplDash=5F11.3.3.0=5FLinux=5Fx86.bin Someone in test downloaded and installed successfully on his Linux which was the exact version as the customer.=A0 We compared his CHECKSUM on the ftp'ed copy to the successful implementation in test.=A0 They were identical. In viewing the error information and traces,the tester noted the following: linux is Redhat 6.7 Santiago. Customer's gzip version is:=A0 gzip=A0=A0-V=A0=A0gzip 1.3.3=A0=A0(2002-03-08)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 The successful test from the test has a gzip version of gzip -V=A0=A0=A0gzip 1.3.12 Not finding any other differences, we wondered if that back-level of gzip would cause the problem????! Thanks in advance for your response.. our customer is asking us so we'll appreciate any input.. Thanks, Kishan Chaitanya Gollapudi 555 bailey Avenue , San Jose, CA - 95141 Ph: 408-463-4763 --0__=8FBBF5E4DFFE22CC8f9e8a93df938690918c8FBBF5E4DFFE22CC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline

Hi,
I have a question that maybe a bug or not.
We ship a product that installs using gzip. the product name is IBM=5FDataReplDash=5F11.3.3.0=5FLinux=5Fx86.bin. Our build machine that build our product is linux enterprise red hat 6.6 = sentiago which includes gzip 1.3.12 (output of gzip -V is 1.3.12).

W= e have a customer who installed our product and has the version gzip 1.3.3 = and who gets the following error even though the download
was done in b= inary format.

Problem Description/Reason for= Collaboration:
When customer tried= to install latest dashboard using=A0 IBM=5FDataReplDash=5F11.3.3.0=5FLinux= =5Fx86.bin, he gets the following error:=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0
Preparing to install...=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
Extracting the= JRE from the installer archive...=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
Unpacking t= he JRE...=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
gzip: /tmp/install.dir.24732/= Linux/resource/vm.tar.Z: invalid=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
compressed data--crc error /tmp/install.dir.24732/Lin= ux/resource/vm.tar.=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
Z: not in compressed form= at gzip: /tmp/install.dir.=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
24732/Linux/resource/vm.tar.Z= : invalid compressed data--crc error The=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0
included VM could not be uncompressed (GZIP/UNCOMPRESS). Please try = to=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
download the installer again and mak= e sure that you download using=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
'binary' mode. Please do not attempt to install this currently=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
downloaded copy<= /tt>

File permission bi= ts is set to
777 for IBM=5FDataReplDash=5F11.3.3.0=5FLinux=5Fx86.bin=A0<= br>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
Someone in test downloaded and installed successfully on his=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
Linux which was the exact version as the cus= tomer.=A0 We compared his=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
CHECKSUM o= n the ftp'ed copy to the successful implementation in=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
test.=A0 They were identical.=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
In viewing the error information and traces,the tester noted the follow= ing:=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
linux is Redhat 6.7 = Santiago.=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0
Customer's gzip version is:=A0 gzip=A0=A0-V=A0=A0gzip 1.3.3= =A0=A0(2002-03-08)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0
The successful test from the test has a gzip version of=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
gzip -V=A0=A0=A0gzip 1.= 3.12=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0
Not finding any other differences, we wondered if that back-level of= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
gzip would cause the problem????!=A0
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
Thanks in advance for your response.. our= customer is asking
us so we'll appreciate any input..

Thanks,
Kishan Chaitanya Gollapudi
555 bailey Avenue ,
San Jose, CA - 95141
Ph: 408-463-4763
=A0=A0=A0
--0__=8FBBF5E4DFFE22CC8f9e8a93df938690918c8FBBF5E4DFFE22CC-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Mar 15 16:43:39 2016 Received: (at 23023) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Mar 2016 20:43:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49463 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1afvoZ-0004q0-6o for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:43:39 -0400 Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:33476) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1afvoX-0004pm-8w for 23023@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:43:37 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A279160175; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:43:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id KTF0_E1TFQF9; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:43:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1E9A160196; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:43:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id GjFpSNk0APED; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:43:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from penguin.cs.ucla.edu (Penguin.CS.UCLA.EDU [131.179.64.200]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A72B1160175; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:43:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: bug#23023: Compatibility between 1.3.3 gzip'ed file and Gzip 1.3.12 To: Kishan c Gollapudi , 23023@debbugs.gnu.org References: <201603152016.u2FKGxd1030656@d01av01.pok.ibm.com> From: Paul Eggert Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: <56E873F2.1050300@cs.ucla.edu> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:43:30 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <201603152016.u2FKGxd1030656@d01av01.pok.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 23023 Cc: Cecile Madsen X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) On 03/15/2016 01:16 PM, Kishan c Gollapudi wrote: > Not finding any other differences, we wondered if that back-level > of > gzip would cause the problem????! Doesn't ring a bell. Anything's possible. RHEL 6.7 has gzip 1.3.12 so it is a bit odd that your customer is running 1.3.3. 1.3.3 is reeeally old and has a lot of security bugs. The GNU project no longer distributes 1.3.3, even as an old release, so we can't easily debug any problems involving 1.3.3. Maybe the customer has an old user-installed binary of gzip 1.3.3? If so, I'd be suspicious of it, and suggest removing it and using the gzip that comes with RHEL. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Mar 15 17:24:51 2016 Received: (at 23023) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Mar 2016 21:24:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49485 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1afwSQ-0005oz-U7 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:24:51 -0400 Received: from e37.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.158]:43500) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1afwFF-0005Ue-2K for 23023@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:11:13 -0400 Received: from localhost by e37.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for <23023@debbugs.gnu.org> from ; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 15:11:07 -0600 Received: from d03dlp03.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.202.179) by e37.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.137) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 15:11:04 -0600 X-IBM-Helo: d03dlp03.boulder.ibm.com X-IBM-MailFrom: kgollap@us.ibm.com X-IBM-RcptTo: 23023@debbugs.gnu.org Received: from b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.27]) by d03dlp03.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9663E19D8047 for <23023@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 14:58:58 -0600 (MDT) Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u2FLB3XU32375012 for <23023@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 21:11:03 GMT Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u2FLB24v032071 for <23023@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:11:02 -0400 Received: from d50lp31.co.us.ibm.com (d50lp31.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.249.32]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id u2FLB0DF031808 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <23023@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:11:01 -0400 Message-Id: <201603152111.u2FLB0DF031808@d01av02.pok.ibm.com> Received: from localhost by d50lp31.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for <23023@debbugs.gnu.org> from ; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 15:00:45 -0600 Received: from smtp.notes.na.collabserv.com (192.155.248.73) by d50lp31.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.2.141) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256/256) Tue, 15 Mar 2016 15:00:43 -0600 X-IBM-Helo: smtp.notes.na.collabserv.com X-IBM-MailFrom: kgollap@us.ibm.com X-IBM-RcptTo: 23023@debbugs.gnu.org Received: from /spool/local by smtp.notes.na.collabserv.com with smtp.notes.na.collabserv.com ESMTP for <23023@debbugs.gnu.org> from ; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 21:00:41 -0000 Received: from us1a3-smtp03.a3.dal06.isc4sb.com (10.106.154.98) by smtp.notes.na.collabserv.com (10.106.227.90) with smtp.notes.na.collabserv.com ESMTP; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 21:00:38 -0000 Received: from us1a3-mail53.a3.dal06.isc4sb.com ([10.106.154.193]) by us1a3-smtp03.a3.dal06.isc4sb.com with ESMTP id 2016031521003830-454611 ; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 21:00:38 +0000 In-Reply-To: <56E873F2.1050300@cs.ucla.edu> Subject: Re: bug#23023: Compatibility between 1.3.3 gzip'ed file and Gzip 1.3.12 To: Paul Eggert From: "Kishan c Gollapudi" Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:00:39 -0800 References: <201603152016.u2FKGxd1030656@d01av01.pok.ibm.com> <56E873F2.1050300@cs.ucla.edu> X-KeepSent: DEB6ECD7:FC7753D0-00257F77:00734D2E; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: IBM Notes Release 9.0.1FP5 SHF106 December 12, 2015 X-LLNOutbound: False X-Disclaimed: 2323 X-TNEFEvaluated: 1 Content-type: multipart/related; Boundary="0__=8FBBF5E4DFE0CBBE8f9e8a93df938690918c8FBBF5E4DFE0CBBE" x-cbid: 16031521-0025-0000-0000-000022A75A1A X-IBM-ISS-SpamDetectors: Score=0.373977; FL=0; FP=0; FZ=0; HX=0; KW=0; PH=0; SC=0.373977; ST=0; TS=0; UL=0; ISC= X-IBM-ISS-DetailInfo: BY=3.00005040; HX=3.00000240; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000150; SDB=6.00673834; UDB=6.00308289; UTC=2016-03-15 21:00:39 x-cbparentid: 16031521-0598-0000-0000-000006EB928E X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 23023 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:24:50 -0400 Cc: 23023@debbugs.gnu.org, Cecile Madsen X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) --0__=8FBBF5E4DFE0CBBE8f9e8a93df938690918c8FBBF5E4DFE0CBBE Content-type: multipart/alternative; Boundary="1__=8FBBF5E4DFE0CBBE8f9e8a93df938690918c8FBBF5E4DFE0CBBE" --1__=8FBBF5E4DFE0CBBE8f9e8a93df938690918c8FBBF5E4DFE0CBBE Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Hi Paul, Thanks a lot for the quick response . We will forward this message to the customer. Thanks, Kishan From: Paul Eggert To: Kishan c Gollapudi/Silicon Valley/IBM@IBMUS, 23023@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: Cecile Madsen/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS Date: 03/15/2016 01:53 PM Subject: Re: bug#23023: Compatibility between 1.3.3 gzip'ed file and Gzip 1.3.12 On 03/15/2016 01:16 PM, Kishan c Gollapudi wrote: > Not finding any other differences, we wondered if that back-level > of > gzip would cause the problem????! Doesn't ring a bell. Anything's possible. RHEL 6.7 has gzip 1.3.12 so it is a bit odd that your customer is running 1.3.3. 1.3.3 is reeeally old and has a lot of security bugs. The GNU project no longer distributes 1.3.3, even as an old release, so we can't easily debug any problems involving 1.3.3. Maybe the customer has an old user-installed binary of gzip 1.3.3? If so, I'd be suspicious of it, and suggest removing it and using the gzip that comes with RHEL. --1__=8FBBF5E4DFE0CBBE8f9e8a93df938690918c8FBBF5E4DFE0CBBE Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline

Hi Paul,

Thanks a lot for the quick response . We wil= l forward this message to the customer.

Thanks,
Kishan

Paul Eggert ---03/15/2016 01:53:= 37 PM---On 03/15/2016 01:16 PM, Kishan c Gollapudi wrote: > Not finding = any other differences, we wondered i

From: Paul Eggert <eggert@cs= .ucla.edu>
To: Kishan c Gollapudi/Silicon Valley/IBM@IBMUS, 23023@debbu= gs.gnu.org
Cc: <= font size=3D"2">Cecile Madsen/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS
Date: 03/15/2016 01= :53 PM
Subject: = Re: bug#23023: Compatibility between 1.3.3 gzip'ed file an= d Gzip 1.3.12




On 03/15/2016 01:16 PM, Kishan = c Gollapudi wrote:
> Not finding any other differences, we wondered i= f that back-level
> of
> gzip would cause the problem????!
<= br>Doesn't ring a bell. Anything's possible.

RHEL 6.7 has gzip 1.3.1= 2 so it is a bit odd that your customer is
running 1.3.3. 1.3.3 is reee= ally old and has a lot of security bugs. The
GNU project no longer dist= ributes 1.3.3, even as an old release, so we
can't easily debug any pro= blems involving 1.3.3. Maybe the customer has
an old user-installed bin= ary of gzip 1.3.3? If so, I'd be suspicious of
it, and suggest removing= it and using the gzip that comes with RHEL.




--1__=8FBBF5E4DFE0CBBE8f9e8a93df938690918c8FBBF5E4DFE0CBBE-- --0__=8FBBF5E4DFE0CBBE8f9e8a93df938690918c8FBBF5E4DFE0CBBE Content-type: image/gif; name="graycol.gif" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="graycol.gif" Content-ID: <1__=8FBBF5E4DFE0CBBE8f9e8a93df938690918c8FB@> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 R0lGODlhEAAQAKECAMzMzAAAAP///wAAACH5BAEAAAIALAAAAAAQABAAAAIXlI+py+0PopwxUbpu ZRfKZ2zgSJbmSRYAIf4fT3B0aW1pemVkIGJ5IFVsZWFkIFNtYXJ0U2F2ZXIhAAA7 --0__=8FBBF5E4DFE0CBBE8f9e8a93df938690918c8FBBF5E4DFE0CBBE-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Mar 15 21:44:12 2016 Received: (at 23023-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Mar 2016 01:44:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49560 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ag0VQ-0003wZ-7O for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 21:44:12 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com ([209.85.214.179]:34812) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ag0VO-0003wL-Ja for 23023-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 21:44:11 -0400 Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id ts10so36753503obc.1 for <23023-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 18:44:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=feAj5neGbPbC3COV9UDMRpGpoVmw2gXISMWy76Wj3ss=; b=JxwrNYr6p0UfjdzkMtjTjAuByQUFZuwm2BCvUBO0gqhCw9tT/4BtWvrrf+9DNsd19H ulz9AJnG47cGSBF853cNxWTGLj0JEX32Ar5UCUC9T6WgLR3kAkK4fYelYOnS8gP6ZZZT x4D5NMMjsbBLta2xbcvtN+lmXUfcVV7Nn+wHvGQkd7Qhd0RnX8nTqtxmUYoRCK9THLyM 7YdfmAJah2Ae9D3toM6Pi2nWagjkS2zEKU3ltBzH94SD+gwzduuspBwfEdUaA2YU3Ub1 xyHzKEXBi1vKH2d/2XCbiw/VgHbymbLafh0Se3WsJ92T5bAlmGKXW83ah/mRtCkAwCe3 +G+w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=feAj5neGbPbC3COV9UDMRpGpoVmw2gXISMWy76Wj3ss=; b=Vv2gCs6EAg3DELDwT1yP3BEgvajVxT/CrpSpAnuJr7c1fILEHHY28RCX+Dxwy0J8i/ d6GVhFkxzT0isvqvIzCrYuZxlahg/FRWoekmp1IsKPFba05O45nikRhfltJQH+VGmM3h AikSYJMQPiKhr7VaRlmEYtYssk+ijjJSzJ7EO1bA3e2ufSvyUfbb87fGy3Vg/6OlCe3k 7mNA1ISJ/H7WQ/w3YLoqPkYU7y6COd/jiWfRFER4hoSeNlSLMe6+VnG+z3YgvbWSoUz2 5Vqy4J62XPPoy2uxcQlJb72t7Ze37hEFVTnOStAZY6bPWmog2+YxVdqVY+Ff8Qjngpfx hLgg== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJmb8tNXfZiW1JzCn9JunqomEwGwVhhsMEDRW2UliulGPMCvUkBES00FWmvub12xoVavr9DXAIzagjXlw== X-Received: by 10.60.227.105 with SMTP id rz9mr743730oec.72.1458092644708; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 18:44:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.202.44.5 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 18:43:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <56E873F2.1050300@cs.ucla.edu> References: <201603152016.u2FKGxd1030656@d01av01.pok.ibm.com> <56E873F2.1050300@cs.ucla.edu> From: Jim Meyering Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 18:43:45 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 55HaGMov1fcDuSPHGRo6Kgz6feA Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#23023: Compatibility between 1.3.3 gzip'ed file and Gzip 1.3.12 To: Paul Eggert Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 23023-done Cc: 23023-done@debbugs.gnu.org, Cecile Madsen , Kishan c Gollapudi X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) tags 23023 notabug done On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 03/15/2016 01:16 PM, Kishan c Gollapudi wrote: >> >> Not finding any other differences, we wondered if that back-level >> of >> gzip would cause the problem????! > > > Doesn't ring a bell. Anything's possible. > > RHEL 6.7 has gzip 1.3.12 so it is a bit odd that your customer is running > 1.3.3. 1.3.3 is reeeally old and has a lot of security bugs. The GNU project > no longer distributes 1.3.3, even as an old release, so we can't easily > debug any problems involving 1.3.3. Maybe the customer has an old > user-installed binary of gzip 1.3.3? If so, I'd be suspicious of it, and > suggest removing it and using the gzip that comes with RHEL. Thanks for the report. I'm marking the auto-created issue as "done" and "not a bug", since it does not appear to be a problem with any recent version. You're welcome to continue replying here, and we'll all still be able to discuss. FYI, it's all archived at http://bugs.gnu.org/23023 From unknown Fri Sep 05 20:55:45 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:24:03 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator