[From nobody Thu Jun 25 05:55:36 2020
Received: from mr85p00im-ztdg06011901.me.com ([17.58.23.198])
 by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux))
 id 1imgi9-0005UD-9F
 for openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org; Wed, 01 Jan 2020 16:19:06 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=me.com; s=1a1hai;
 t=1577895543; bh=OzsKeG45qGRsLARxScemhXVK5/z2Nt/EAPCYZzAkjgM=;
 h=Content-Type:Subject:From:Date:Message-Id:To;
 b=UMyo8Zu6xOrAwXPoV7dWNEPHSDv3IWfe5V2ZSUjol7fgdMq2u5fItbz5EdWEKsKlY
 jfrvpACP7X8G6MqNDpPvzTVjNbcsWvnC/gCxEDaS06dLvgdaQvmAompdO00O+iRvFI
 nvtrypXliYuRgzqBqcW3MKjmO7o5QwMjogXGs4+rgVjNtsIMj3P7rUhS6SSaGAAARK
 FYW9t64FlWfuVk+kOnRUsV/oVG7nZeISxOXpHp2ns7MG/fYsogcQhpNyjyE+uOjix6
 LGiBb1dLJr/DqCjoOKVrZrd+4vBJdAUnHMcQU7+uWbYL4icL0iJfY60HYzMdo0HBCT
 yDzpCehWypJxg==
Received: from [192.168.176.103] (78-80-17-93.nat.epc.tmcz.cz [78.80.17.93])
 by mr85p00im-ztdg06011901.me.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 88448A60E2C;
 Wed,  1 Jan 2020 16:19:01 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.40.2.2.4\))
Subject: Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Sysupgrade possibly broken in recent development
 snapshots: &quot;message&quot;: &quot;Firmware image couldn't be validated&quot;
From: =?utf-8?Q?Petr_Nov=C3=A1k?= &lt;petrn@me.com&gt;
In-Reply-To: &lt;20200101161447.GQ70184@meh.true.cz&gt;
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2020 17:18:59 +0100
Cc: Hannu Nyman &lt;hannu.nyman@welho.com&gt;,
 openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: &lt;67D26BEE-41EE-4C4F-BF5D-90FC63194A04@me.com&gt;
References: &lt;20191230190746.GI70184@meh.true.cz&gt;
 &lt;357266D6-1E26-4066-AFE5-746C2407B0DF@me.com&gt;
 &lt;20191230225631.GJ70184@meh.true.cz&gt;
 &lt;D18390C9-BACD-441C-BC1F-41CD9B01634E@me.com&gt;
 &lt;20191231095801.GK70184@meh.true.cz&gt;
 &lt;46C7C775-CDBB-4E84-8C7F-A0F949F1F981@me.com&gt;
 &lt;20191231134925.GL70184@meh.true.cz&gt;
 &lt;C9B93DB4-A2CA-455B-8B4F-E7A23E34D141@me.com&gt;
 &lt;20200101124453.GM70184@meh.true.cz&gt;
 &lt;2DF80201-77E5-4301-9046-67165E5A8B9C@me.com&gt;
 &lt;20200101161447.GQ70184@meh.true.cz&gt;
To: =?utf-8?Q?Petr_=C5=A0tetiar?= &lt;ynezz@true.cz&gt;
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.40.2.2.4)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, ,
 definitions=2020-01-01_05:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0
 malwarescore=0
 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0
 mlxlogscore=792 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx
 scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-2001010147
X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 
X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20200101_081905_338349_7D31754C 
X-CRM114-Status: UNSURE (   7.34  )
X-CRM114-Notice: Please train this message.
X-Spam-Score: -0.9 (/)
X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.4.2 on bombadil.infradead.org summary:
 Content analysis details:   (-0.9 points)
 pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail
 provider (petrn[at]me.com)
 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE          SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily
 valid
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU          Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
 author's domain
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID_EF          Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
 envelope-from domain
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
 -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW      RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
 low trust [17.58.23.198 listed in list.dnswl.org]

OK, I have planned to do that anyway, but I have a good reason not to =
delay that work...

&gt; On 1 Jan 2020, at 17:14, Petr =C5=A0tetiar &lt;ynezz@true.cz&gt; wrote:
&gt;=20
&gt; Petr Nov=C3=A1k &lt;petrn@me.com&gt; [2020-01-01 15:14:47]:
&gt;=20
&gt;&gt; The updated procd did actually allow the upgrade to proceed:
&gt;=20
&gt; Ok, thats interesting.
&gt;=20
&gt; Can you find out which commit in procd actually fixes it? It should be =
enough
&gt; to change PKG_SOURCE_VERSION in package/system/procd/Makefile to the
&gt; respective hash:
&gt;=20
&gt; 1. build with =
PKG_SOURCE_VERSION:=3D5ed190aae1b3985719046f4c744e311fc9ef18e3, test
&gt; 2. build with =
PKG_SOURCE_VERSION:=3D6544e4f1fbdbb92df8a3776e449fdb5602b8ddcd, test
&gt; 3. build with =
PKG_SOURCE_VERSION:=3Dff03f3ed9b6af8b209dae63f24790664c94bd916, test
&gt;=20
&gt; Thanks!
&gt;=20
&gt; -- ynezz


]