[PATCH 1/5] random: Don't assume that _WIN64 implies x86_64

[Jussi Kivilinna]

On 25.03.2018 22:13, Martin Storsjö wrote:
> Hei,
> 
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018, Jussi Kivilinna wrote:
> 
>> Moi,
>>
>> On 22.03.2018 23:05, Martin Storsjö wrote:
>>> Moikka,
>>>
>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018, Jussi Kivilinna wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 22.03.2018 10:56, Martin Storsjö wrote:
>>>>> This fixes building this file for windows on aarch64.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Martin Storsjö <martin at martin.st>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the patches. There is few generic things that needs to be done
>>>> before these can be applied:
>>>> - Check signing off DCO part in doc/HACKING
>>>
>>> Thanks - this should done now, hopefully the signatures should be fine even though I don't have a really proper mail+PGP setup.
>>>
>>
>> I'd also need to verify the signed DCO, so you would need to export
>> your public key (maybe by send it to key-server).
> 
> Ah, right - that should be done now, and I'm finding it on a few public search interfaces on the web.
> 
Appears that somewhere along the way newlines on your DCO changed from Unix format to DOS and verifying DCO+DCO.sig fails:
 $ gpg --verify DCO.sig DCO
 gpg: Signature made to 22. maaliskuuta 2018 22.53.22 EET
 gpg:                using RSA key 0x2F9B2688742ACF25
 gpg: BAD signature from "Martin Storsjö <martin at martin.st>" [unknown]

When newlines are reverted back to unix format, signature matches:
 $ dos2unix < DCO | gpg --verify DCO.sig -
 gpg: Signature made to 22. maaliskuuta 2018 22.53.22 EET
 gpg:                using RSA key 0x2F9B2688742ACF25
 gpg: Good signature from "Martin Storsjö <martin at martin.st>" [unknown]

Which is good enough for me, but what do others think? Werner?

-Jussi