update checksums to actual

[bovlb]

When I download the files (using Python script), I get different checksums. I don't know if this is a difference in the way that the checksums are calculated in Python, if files have been updated, if the checksums were just out of date, or what.

[thomasjosif]

If you try downloading the files directly via the link, what checksums do you get?

[sciencewhiz]

I downloaded the files with the gui, and verified them with the python tool in #139 and everything matched what was in the json. I then downloaded everything with the python tool, and they also matched what was in the json, so I don't think the json is the problem.

[JamieSinn]

All of the hashes in the file are accurate based on the binary contents. Can you share how you got these hashes?

I wrote a check verifier for this reason; and it passed on all of them?

[JamieSinn]

Can you share how you got these hashes?

[bovlb]

Sorry to be slow to respond. It's been a busy weekend. :)

Unfortunately my scrollback doesn't go back far enough to capture the actual output. I believe that the process I went through to get the new checksums was to:

1. Run the Python script to generate a USB drive.
2. Noted the checksum issues, "fixed" them, and validated.
3. Generated a second USB drive with fresh downloads and the updated checksums, and it passed validation.

I just ran the download again, and got the original checksums. I also verified the contents of the two USB drives I made last week, and they validated against the original checksums.

Frankly, I'm not sure what's going on here. I could believe that one USB key might be flaky, but two keys being flaky in a consistent way seems implausible. I don't think my changes to the Python script would have had any effect on the hashes. I'm going to use fresh USB keys for my next event.

I'm going to close this PR now.