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

[Martin Storsjö]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2018, Jussi Kivilinna wrote:

> 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?

Would it make things better to resend it with the signed attachment 
originally with dos newlines (or fixing whatever changed them and 
resending), or does that make my mess even bigger?

// Martin