-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 13 Jul 2013 11:36:00 +0200 Till Maas <opensource@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? We don't make and sign CHECKSUMS for the equivalent bits on any arch. to have anaconda run you need to boot the kernel and initramfs. and pass to it options to find the rest of the bits. exactly as is done on primary. though you likely need to instrall u-boot to the sdcard then setup a boot.scr that loads things for you. and hopefully anaconda will let you destroy it when running. since you will be booting from the target media. > 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) Also true of all arches, we don't make CHECKSUMS or sign them > 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 probably a difference in the setup of the sigul between primary and secondary arches. the comment about sha256sum only ever exists in pungi generated CHECKSUMS all the manually generated ones which includes Live and Spins trees do not have it. if you want to change things i suggest you join Release engineering and help me to make things better rather than just complain that how I do things doesn't suit your needs. Release Engineering is me with a lot of help from Kevin Fenzi and over the last few releases a lot more has been asked from me which means many things that could have been done have not been. as is Both Kevin and I work a lot more than 40 hours. > Here is a ticket for this: > https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/3888 the ticket is for nothing mentioned in this email Dennis -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlHhhWQACgkQkSxm47BaWfc8AgCgvO64NUjKAZIW55jf3lZ/zulF r4MAnj8tst7Q0iOSIFej0o0FbWSIYiHP =jAlW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
