What tell me in this mail ?
As you wrote, for *Fedora CORE-3*, the new tetex is:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Product : Fedora Core 3
Name : tetex
Version : 2.0.2 Release : 21.2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
and the list of files (i386 version) is:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ftp://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/updates/3/i386/tetex-2.0.2-21.2.i386.rpm
ftp://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/updates/3/i386/tetex-afm-2.0.2-21.2.i386.rpm
ftp://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/updates/3/i386/tetex-doc-2.0.2-21.2.i386.rpm
ftp://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/updates/3/i386/tetex-dvips-2.0.2-21.2.i386.rpm
ftp://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/updates/3/i386/tetex-fonts-2.0.2-21.2.i386.rpm
ftp://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/updates/3/i386/tetex-latex-2.0.2-21.2.i386.rpm
ftp://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/updates/3/i386/tetex-xdvi-2.0.2-21.2.i386.rpm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
and the MD5 checksums you wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
5efacdad82d61ed25030269b6c89abfe i386/tetex-2.0.2-21.2.i386.rpm
49967d06270603a146d9f8d27eaaf08c i386/tetex-afm-2.0.2-21.2.i386.rpm
7ec42e9568ec05ed17b5ad708286bd0d i386/tetex-doc-2.0.2-21.2.i386.rpm
14ea742121160307adbbcf37c4a3401a i386/tetex-dvips-2.0.2-21.2.i386.rpm
569591b26e0cab205c87f112756212c9 i386/tetex-fonts-2.0.2-21.2.i386.rpm
e249065b4ff83339a52cf4ee67b5931d i386/tetex-latex-2.0.2-21.2.i386.rpm
aee5e12bc7c8349ab06f0f3ebe8eab5f i386/tetex-xdvi-2.0.2-21.2.i386.rpm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please try to download all these files (only 60 Mb, ???) and you can see that ALL CHECKSUMS *ARE WRONG* !!!
So I ask you to send me an answer (new and correct MD5 checksums or when you post another RPMs on your site).
There's no need. Yes, the md5sums are wrong but RPM packages have built-in checksums (and these RPMs also have GPG signatures), which you can check using "rpm --checksig *.rpm"
Paul.
