After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 589318 - Brasero fails checksums. But checksums are OK!
Brasero fails checksums. But checksums are OK!
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 591881
Product: brasero
Classification: Applications
Component: general
2.26.3
Other All
: Normal normal
: 2.26
Assigned To: Brasero maintainer(s)
Brasero maintainer(s)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2009-07-22 04:26 UTC by roger
Modified: 2009-08-22 11:38 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.25/2.26

Attachments
Brasero log file. (48.21 KB, text/plain)
2009-07-22 04:56 UTC, roger 		Details

Description roger 2009-07-22 04:26:06 UTC 
Please describe the problem:
I believe Brasero is failing to calculate proper checksums.

The write session appears to be a success even though Brasero complains vigorously after a burn session with a pop-up window stating the session failed.

The log states nothing out of the ordinary.


And the burned files all seem to pass sha1sum checks:
$ sha1sum -c .checksum.sha1
Photography_ALL-20080908.tar.ag: OK


Steps to reproduce:
1. 
2. 
3. 


Actual results:


Expected results:


Does this happen every time?


Other information:
I'm wondering if somehow Brasero is calculating entire ISO checksums instead of individual file checksums, then writing to CD/DVD.  Once complete, rechecks and finds the checksums differ (due to the added .checksums folder)?  But I somehow doubt it.
Comment 1 roger 2009-07-22 04:56:54 UTC 
Created attachment 138962 [details]
Brasero log file.

I didn't see anything unusual besides the "successfully completed", denoting Brasero is possibly wrongly using sha1sum producing the misleading gtk window failure notices.
Comment 2 Benjamín Valero Espinosa 2009-08-22 11:38:15 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 591881 ***