Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic solved
This topic has been marked as solved and requires no further attention.
Topic: Bad SHA256 checksum for artix-base-runit-20201128-x86_64.iso (Read 1115 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bad SHA256 checksum for artix-base-runit-20201128-x86_64.iso

The artix-base-runit-20201128-x86_64.iso image (both from Dotsrc and the NTUA mirrors) reads the wrong checksum:
69D3EB655DBE794255CFC744A56EE1E82B9F8F119794AD83165756302907FF56
instead of:
39dee90109ed0b4c8126aacd3ab393f29bc94f317edbc293d608c35827630fea
Also, the signature file is missing.

Re: Bad SHA256 checksum for artix-base-runit-20201128-x86_64.iso

Reply #1 –
Same problem with OpenRC ISOs.
Code: [Select]
gpg --verify artix-base-openrc-20201128-x86_64.iso.sig
gpg: assuming signed data in 'artix-base-openrc-20201128-x86_64.iso'
gpg: Signature made Sun 29 Nov 2020 02:35:27 AM CET
gpg:                using RSA key A574A1915CEDE31A3BFF5A68606520ACB886B428
gpg: BAD signature from "Christos Nouskas <[email protected]>" [unknown]

What is the cause of this problems?
I was thinking about switching to Artix but this is a sad start.  :(

Re: Bad SHA256 checksum for artix-base-runit-20201128-x86_64.iso

Reply #3 –
Thank you for the info but hashes look wrong even for the weekly build, which aren't even signed.
I would expect an ISO meant to become my primary OS to be at least signed by a member of the core dev team.
 

Re: Bad SHA256 checksum for artix-base-runit-20201128-x86_64.iso

Reply #4 –
Ah, my bad. There were several last-minute fixes in the 20201128 weeklies which got promoted to stable. I rebuilt them but forgot to update the signatures and the sha256sums. If you grep 20201128 and 20201129 you should see when each image was built.  Also, I intend to promote again the 201204 weeklies which incorporate the big python 3.9 rebuild.

Thanks for the report, sigs and sums have been fixed.