unclear installer platform descriptions

Asked by Brendan McDonnell on 2018-06-29

On the download page,
https://developer.arm.com/open-source/gnu-toolchain/gnu-rm/downloads#
since 6-2017-q2-update and still currently, there are 3 options for Windows installer downloads, such as:

- gcc-arm-none-eabi-7-2018-q2-update-win32.exe
    Windows 32-bit Installer

- gcc-arm-none-eabi-7-2018-q2-update-win32-sha1.exe
    Windows 32-bit Installer (Signed for Windows XP and Vista)

- gcc-arm-none-eabi-7-2018-q2-update-sha2.exe
    Windows 32-bit Installer (Signed for Windows 7 and later)

What is the first one for? The 2nd and 3rd together seem to cover all cases.

e.g. I'm running Windows 10. Should I choose the 1st or 3rd installer? Please let me know in the thread here.

I think the description of the 1st installer should also be clarified on the download page. Do I need to file a bug report for that?

Question information

Language:
English Edit question
Status:
Answered
For:
GNU Arm Embedded Toolchain Edit question
Assignee:
No assignee Edit question
Last query:
2018-07-05
Last reply:
2018-07-06

Hi brendan,

The first one is an unsigned installer and is less secure as a result. It's a fallback in case the signed version don't work for some reason. In short: use the third installer in your case.

Best regards.

Thanks for the info.

Why would anyone *want* an unsigned installer, when you offer signed installers?

Maybe someone wants to use the same installer accross different computers? Signed installed could be proposed first though and the unsigned installer be labeled as such, I agree.

Tejas Belagod (belagod-tejas) said : #4

Brendan, the unsigned installer purely exists for legacy reasons. I don't expect anyone to use them on recent Windows platforms.

Deprecation of legacy installers should be done over a reasonably long period of time. We want to give the world enough notice to move to newer installers before we stop providing them.

> Deprecation of legacy installers should be done over a reasonably long period of time. We want to give the world enough notice to move to newer installers before we stop providing them.

Agreed. But please then mark them as deprecated on the download page.

I would've just filed a bug report for this, but the bug report page said to discuss here first. Will you update the verbiage on the download page? Or should I file the bug report?

Tejas Belagod (belagod-tejas) said : #6

Our process involves sending out an announcement here on Launchpad of our plans. Then wait a while to hear back from the community. Then mark it deprecated till the time that we've said we'll support it in the announcement. We're still deciding on these details - so watch this space.

Meanwhile please file a report so that can we fix the immediate need for clarifying the presence of the binary. Thanks.

Hi Brendan,

We've improved the download page according to your feedback. Thanks!

Can you help with this problem?

Provide an answer of your own, or ask Brendan McDonnell for more information if necessary.

To post a message you must log in.