Le mar 28/09/2004 Ã 23:03, Arjan van de Ven a Ãcrit :
> > > I don't see this as a problem; the file that does exist is supposed to be
> > > valid enough for building your own kernel.
> >
> > It's not :
> > const int ksign_def_public_key_size = 0;
> > /* automatically generated by bin2hex */
> > static unsigned char ksign_def_public_key[] __initdata =
> > {
> > 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00
> > };
>
> and how is that not valid ??
>
I am not a crypto expert but if it's valid key it seems easy to crack.
No ?
Anyway, since there is no secret key in kernel-sourcecode (it's normal)
and the secret key is not generated with "rpmbuild -bp", you can forget
this :-)
So, what is the significant difference between "rpmbuild -bp" and
kernel-sourcecode: EXTRAVERSION in Makefile.
I have another request :
kernel-sourcecode depend on gtk2-devel and qt-devel (for "make xconfig
and gconfig").
If we want "rpmbuild -bp" close to the "old" kernel-sourcecode, perhaps
we should add "BuildPreReq: gtk2-devel, qt-devel" in kernel-2.6.spec .
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e=2E?=
