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. T
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 rat
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
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?
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 install
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!
6 matches
Mail list logo