Hi Eduard,
I'm afraid I'm still seeing some issues with 0.9.3.
First, the misbehaving "Check all" button. I've confirmed that marking
every checkbox manually (using Space-Tab repeatedly) does not give the
same result as "Check all"; the latter results in a much larger list of
files to delete. Furthermore, hitting "Check all" even when there are no
checkboxes on the page (!) results in a long list of files to delete.
And as before, the files to be deleted with "Check all" include numerous
current index files for amd64 and i386, which is clearly incorrect.
Without using "Check all", I manually selected all the phantom exotic-
architecture index files that were causing me grief earlier and deleted
them. Re-scanning for expiration did not, as before, bring them back.
However, for good measure I did another scan with hash checking, and
this unfortunately brought back the 404 errors for the exotic-arch
index files.
One other thing I noticed: A number of files related to debian-installer
gave "checksum mismatch" errors, but I'm not sure if that is
appropriate. Here is the list:
debian/dists/jessie/main/installer-amd64/current/images/MD5SUMS
debian/dists/jessie/main/installer-amd64/current/images/netboot/mini.iso
debian/dists/jessie/main/installer-i386/current/images/MD5SUMS
debian/dists/jessie/main/installer-i386/current/images/netboot/mini.iso
debian/dists/sid/main/installer-amd64/current/images/SHA256SUMS
debian/dists/sid/main/installer-amd64/current/images/netboot/mini.iso
debian/dists/stable/main/installer-i386/current/images/netboot/mini.iso
debian/dists/wheezy/main/installer-amd64/current/images/netboot/mini.iso
debian/dists/wheezy/main/installer-i386/current/images/MD5SUMS
debian/dists/wheezy/main/installer-i386/current/images/netboot/mini.iso
ubuntu/dists/vivid/main/installer-amd64/current/images/netboot/mini.iso
ubuntu/dists/vivid/main/installer-i386/current/images/netboot/mini.iso
Unlike package files, these don't have version numbers in the names. Yet
they are updated from time to time. It doesn't seem right to call them
"damaged" when they are at most out of date; might some special-case
handling be in order?
