ped7g: makes me kinda wonder what "Verifying archive integrity... All good." line in the gog installer actually does... :D
kilobug: It seems to check the integrity of the installer of itself, but not of the data to install.
But then the shell script was already produced from damaged installer and the script is ok. And I have hard time to imagine the installer crashing just because of truncated data file, that would be really sloppy code of unpacker, so it looks more like some weird damage of data... then again GOG was using some patched version of some installer to also encrypt the compressed data with password IIRC, so maybe it is sloppy code and just truncated file.
shmerl: I'm more interested in what happened to GOG's QA. Was it disbanded? Looks like they aren't even testing their own packages before releasing them. At this rate, I'd simply prefer developers to make their own tarballs, and take GOG's deteriorating release process out of the picture.
Ah, I'm trying not even comment on this, I lost pretty much all hope for GOG since LinuxVanGogh left and with each their web update, their precision and skill was on my scale (I'm programming computers for ~30 years and I'm pedantic asshole requiring perfection ad absurdum, far beyond the sensible point where it is profitable) on "kid amateurs" all the time, but apparently they managed to go even lower, which was initially hard to believe... But here we are. But it's not like this situation is making me worried more, for me it all makes sense. I just wonder if they will be able to fix it within a week or two.
And I absolutely agree about that part of letting devs post tar.gz/deb/7z/sh files themselves. Literally can't be worse. Or maybe they should give devs some "SDK" pack so the devs will build the shell script with the GOG ads during unpacking...