Re: Checksums missing for firmware-8.2.0-amd64-i386-netinst.iso
- To: Simon Josefsson <email@example.com>
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Checksums missing for firmware-8.2.0-amd64-i386-netinst.iso
- From: Steve McIntyre <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 16:37:40 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20151007153740.GJ20142@einval.com>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com> <20150924223453.GF22011@einval.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20150929013355.GP22011@einval.com> <email@example.com>
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 04:22:58PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 09:38:39AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> >Den Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:34:53 +0100
>> >skrev Re: Checksums missing for
>> >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:17:50PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> >> >Hi. In the SHA256SUMS etc files on
>> >> >
>> >> >http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/8.2.0/multi-arch/iso-cd/
>> >> >
>> >> >I cannot find checksums for the
>> >> >firmware-8.2.0-amd64-i386-netinst.iso file. How could I verify
>> >> >the integrity of that download?
>> >> Hi Simon,
>> >> Thanks for your report! There was a scripting bug that dropped that
>> >> checksum when we released. I've just fixed things up now and
>> >> re-signed the checksums files.
>> >Thank you!
>> >I also couldn't find checksums/signatures on the firmware files, are
>> >they published anywhere? I looked here:
>> That's a good question; we don't currently sign those at all, and
>> that's less than ideal I guess. Please file a bug to remind me and
>> I'll get that fixed up shortly...
>Against what package?
It's done, no need now... :-)
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. firstname.lastname@example.org
"We're the technical experts. We were hired so that management could
ignore our recommendations and tell us how to do our jobs." -- Mike Andrews