User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:6.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/6.0 Build ID: 20110811165603 Steps to reproduce: Tried to verify the integrity and authenticity of firefox 6.0.1 release tarball. Actual results: Releases prior to 6.0.1 came with a detached gpg signature file, so that the tarball could be verified for integrity and authenticity. (example: http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/6.0/linux-i686/en-US/ and note the .asc file). 6.0.1 however has no .asc file for it (examine the content of http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/6.0/linux-i686/en-US/ ). it is not even included in the upper-level SHA1SUMS file. So, I failed to find a method to verify the integrity or authenticity of the release archive. Expected results: I should have found the .asc file as usual, right next to the .bz2, and been able to verify the signature. Please push out the signatures for the released files asap!

I tried asking about this on irc.mozilla.org/#firefox IRC, but was directed to file a report on bugzilla. Hope this is an appropriate section to file this in.

Moving to installer as it's the closest component I could think of

Confirmed on the master copy of the 6.0.1 files. We have asc files on the win32 installers and the two SUMS files, but not for Mac or either Linux. RelEng, I bet this is a result of the signing issues, where signed-build1/ was moved away and we forgot to rsync linux + mac over from unsigned-build1/ (the last line of the download target at http://hg.mozilla.org/build/tools/file/tip/release/signing/Makefile#l180) Fx 3.6.21 and 3.6.22 build2 are OK, but 6.0.2 build2 has the same problem.

I think I've fixed 6.0.2 build 2.

Looks good to me. I'll get the other two releases tomorrow, if no-one beats me to it.

6.0.1 has been fixed and pushed to the mirrors.

7.0b3 has been fixed, even though we didn't actually release that. Bug 634270 tracks the underlying issue.

Problem reappears in 7.0.1. (This probably isn't too surprising as according to Comment 9 the underlying problem isn't solved yet. I thought, it might make some sense to report nevertheless. Hope, this was all right.)

(In reply to Peter Mattern from comment #10) > Problem reappears in 7.0.1. > (This probably isn't too surprising as according to Comment 9 the underlying > problem isn't solved yet. I thought, it might make some sense to report > nevertheless. Hope, this was all right.) Fixing up 7.0.1 is tracked in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=690730