SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

November 2008

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Troy Dawson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Troy Dawson <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:26:25 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (79 lines)
Well, I hate to say it, but I'm giving up on signing the x86_64 jdk that comes 
from sun.
I've tried it with many versions of rpm, and or many different distributions, 
but it just doesn't sign correctly.
But, I am going to sign the i586 jdk.  That works correctly.  And that should 
be enough for about 75% of people, which is much better than we had before.

So, the signed jdk-1.6.0_10-fcs.i586.rpm, and the unsigned 
jdk-1.6.0_10-fcs.x86_64.rpm are back up in the testing area.

I haven't heard any complaints other than the digital signatures, so it looks 
like we're set to push these out on December 2nd.

Troy


Troy J Dawson wrote:
> *Troy gives a sigh*
> Have I mentioned how excited I will be when we move completely to openjdk.
> 
> Sure enough, something (I don't really know what) is wrong with the x86_64 version.
> I had been doing a "rpm -qpi" and looking at the signatures, and they are the same, but sure enough, rpm doesn't like the x86_64 signature for some reason.
> 
> Back to the drawing board.  I still have a couple more options to try.
> Thanks for letting me know.  Also, thanks to the others who let me know as well.  There were a couple of people who caught this problem.
> 
> Give me a couple days, and we'll try again.
> 
> Troy
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: Dr Andrew C Aitchison [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:57 PM
> To: Troy J Dawson
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: TESTING - jdk (java) update for SL4 and SL5
> 
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Troy Dawson wrote:
> 
>> The jdk's are now signed by me.  I have tested them on both SL4 and SL5 32
>> bit and 64 bit, and they are installing correctly.  It looks like the
>> signature didn't break them this time.  Please let me know if anyone has any
>> problems with these signed jdk's.
> 
> jdk-1.6.0_10-fcs.i586.rpm is fine,
> but my system doesn't like jdk-1.6.0_10-fcs.x86_64.rpm
> 
> # rm jdk-1.6.0_10-fcs.x86_64.rpm*
> # wget --no-cache http://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/5rolling/testing/x86_64/java/jdk-1.6.0_10-fcs.x86_64.rpm
> --05:51:40--
> http://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/5rolling/testing/x86_64/java/jdk-1.6.0_10-fcs.x86_64.rpm
> Resolving ftp.scientificlinux.org... 131.225.110.41
> Connecting to ftp.scientificlinux.org|131.225.110.41|:80... connected.
> HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
> Length: 59807994 (57M) [application/x-rpm]
> Saving to: `jdk-1.6.0_10-fcs.x86_64.rpm'
> 
> 100%[=============================================================================================>]
> 59,807,994  13.5M/s   in 7.8s
> 
> 05:51:52 (7.31 MB/s) - `jdk-1.6.0_10-fcs.x86_64.rpm' saved [59807994/59807994]
> 
> # md5sum jdk-1.6.0_10-fcs.x86_64.rpm
> 038e61347d86ee0398551fdf1b276ce8  jdk-1.6.0_10-fcs.x86_64.rpm
> # sha1sum jdk-1.6.0_10-fcs.x86_64.rpm
> b3ea83bfd3a52dd7b6ab76614dfdf7b98c04f237  jdk-1.6.0_10-fcs.x86_64.rpm
> # rpm -K jdk-1.6.0_10-fcs.x86_64.rpm
> jdk-1.6.0_10-fcs.x86_64.rpm: (SHA1) DSA md5 gpg NOT OK
> # rpmquery rpm
> rpm-4.4.2-48.el5.x86_64
> # host ftp.scientificlinux.org
> ftp.scientificlinux.org is an alias for linux21.fnal.gov.linux21.fnal.gov has address 131.225.110.41
> 
-- 
__________________________________________________
Troy Dawson  [log in to unmask]  (630)840-6468
Fermilab  ComputingDivision/LCSI/CSI DSS Group
__________________________________________________

ATOM RSS1 RSS2