On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 02:06:12PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > we have a kernel and initramfs, that can be pxe booted or you can boot > and load, however we have not made it the primary mathod of > install for boards because they generally can only boot and run from a > sdcard you would need to install to the boot media. it quite possibly > works just fine other than not installing uboot to the sdcard in the > way needed, however for non omap systems that copy the file into a > partition it will likely work ok. so cubieboard since you need to dd > u-boot into a particular location of the sdcard it should still be > there post install. Its not tested at all however. I cannot completely follow here. However, I guess the images you mean are the following: http://ftp-stud.hs-esslingen.de/pub/fedora-secondary/releases/19/Fedora/armhfp/os/images/pxeboot/ Is there any particular reason, why there is no signed CHECKSUM file for these? What is required for these images to be able to run anaconda and install packages? I assume that anaconda won't verify package signatures, therefore I guess a copy of manual verified RPMs is required? And what can be done with the live image: http://ftp-stud.hs-esslingen.de/pub/fedora-secondary/releases/19/Fedora/armhfp/os/LiveOS/ (It is also not signed) The raw disk images seem to be signed: http://ftp-stud.hs-esslingen.de/pub/fedora-secondary/releases/19/Images/armhfp/Fedora-Images-armhfp-19-CHECKSUM But I noticed that here SHA1 is used instead of SHA256 for the GPG signature and the comment about sha256sum being used to generate the hashes is missing, e.g. the primary archs have files like these: https://fedoraproject.org/static/checksums/Fedora-19-x86_64-CHECKSUM Here is a ticket for this: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/3888 Regards Till -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
