FU: RE: 6.6/packages/i386/SHA256.sig to be verified with 'openbsd-65-pkg.pub'?

2019-11-11 Thread zeurkous
Evening, mewrote: > theo wrote: >> >> These files have now been replaced. Does it look right? > > Me's afraid not: SHA256.sig is now rather short, ending at the hash of > aqsis-1.8.2p10.tgz (tried to fetch it from both ftp.eu and the CDN: same > result). ...which now appears to have been fixed.

RE: 6.6/packages/i386/SHA256.sig to be verified with 'openbsd-65-pkg.pub'?

2019-11-11 Thread zeurkous
Morning, theo wrote: > wrote: > >> That doesn't seem right. Did you folks use the wrong key when signing >> the file, or is there a particular reason to do it this way that me's >> not aware of...? > > These files have now been replaced. Does it look right? Me's afraid not: SHA256.sig is now

Re: 6.6/packages/i386/SHA256.sig to be verified with 'openbsd-65-pkg.pub'?

2019-11-11 Thread Anthony Campbell
On 10 Nov 2019, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2019-11-10, wrote: > > That doesn't seem right. Did you folks use the wrong key when signing > > the file, or is there a particular reason to do it this way that me's > > not aware of...? > > Thanks for the report, yes i386 (and mips64) had the wrong

Re: 6.6/packages/i386/SHA256.sig to be verified with 'openbsd-65-pkg.pub'?

2019-11-10 Thread Theo de Raadt
wrote: > That doesn't seem right. Did you folks use the wrong key when signing > the file, or is there a particular reason to do it this way that me's > not aware of...? These files have now been replaced. Does it look right?

Re: 6.6/packages/i386/SHA256.sig to be verified with 'openbsd-65-pkg.pub'?

2019-11-10 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2019-11-10, wrote: > That doesn't seem right. Did you folks use the wrong key when signing > the file, or is there a particular reason to do it this way that me's > not aware of...? Thanks for the report, yes i386 (and mips64) had the wrong key. I guess not many people are doing fresh

6.6/packages/i386/SHA256.sig to be verified with 'openbsd-65-pkg.pub'?

2019-11-10 Thread zeurkous
That doesn't seem right. Did you folks use the wrong key when signing the file, or is there a particular reason to do it this way that me's not aware of...? --zeur. -- Friggin' Machines!