Angstrom Core Team

Angstrom Core Team

[Richard Purdie]

Hi Guys,

As people will note, Laibsch (Rolf) has been frustrated by politics and
personalities getting in the way of development and this is *bad*. I
don't think anyone wants this.

With this in mind I'd like to propose creating a formal core of Angstrom
developers similar to that which exists in OE (and has seemed to work
well as far as I know).

The core team is basically a group of developers who can collectively
guide the project. At the moment the leadership for Angstrom is unclear
and this would clarify that and mean that a solid structure is
established.

Whilst I can't really call myself an Angstrom developer exactly, I do
have a vested interest in seeing it become a success. Why is Angstrom
important? Most of the other handheld distributions in OpenEmbedded were
lining themselves up to work under the Angstrom banner. Familiar and
OpenZaurus are dead projects and all hopes for handhelds support from OE
now rest on Angstrom's shoulders. OE therefore has a vested interest in
Angstrom and this is one reason I want to see it succeed. I also think
it has massive potential if done correctly.

What I don't want is anyone feeling the need for yet-another-distro
which would be the next step is Angstrom's leadership cannot be made
clear. This leads to fragmentation which is bad.

So who should be on the core team? My thoughts are that Koen is an
obvious candidate. I'd propose Marcin/hrw (experience from OZ),
Graeme/XorA (developer/user) and Rod Whitby/rwhitby (to represent the
other non handhelds that Angstrom supports). I'd also propose inviting
Rolf/laibsch if he does consider coming back to the project.

Membership of the core team probably doesn't involve too much work, you
just need to care about the project, be involved with it in some way and
be prepared to make decisions now and again and make sure the project
agrees on a direction.

Thoughts, comments, suggestions and alternatives welcome.

I do think Angstrom needs some kind of formalised leadership though.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [Angstrom-devel] Angstrom Core Team

[Graeme Gregory]

On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 10:38:30PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> With this in mind I'd like to propose creating a formal core of Angstrom
> developers similar to that which exists in OE (and has seemed to work
> well as far as I know).
> 
Sounds sensible to me, as long as the founders of Angstrom are agreeable.

> So who should be on the core team? My thoughts are that Koen is an
> obvious candidate. I'd propose Marcin/hrw (experience from OZ),
> Graeme/XorA (developer/user) and Rod Whitby/rwhitby (to represent the
> other non handhelds that Angstrom supports). I'd also propose inviting
> Rolf/laibsch if he does consider coming back to the project.
> 
I would happilly take a steering role, I also think Mickey as a founder
and commercial user of Angstrom (last I heard he wanted to merge
openmoko in).

I defineately think Rolf would be a good addition, a team always needs
a devils advocate, and Rolf can do this with style.

> Thoughts, comments, suggestions and alternatives welcome.
> 
The alternative I fear is people start adding DISTRO that do
include angstrom.conf
REDEFINE_STUFF_WE_DONT_LIKE

But they are all basically the same DISTRO with a fiddle.

And maybe at OEDEM we hire some sumo suits to settle problems?

Graeme

Re: [Angstrom-devel] Angstrom Core Team

[Dr. Michael Lauer]

Graeme Gregory wrote:
> I would happilly take a steering role, I also think Mickey as a founder
> and commercial user of Angstrom (last I heard he wanted to merge
> openmoko in).

Agreed. Koen and me went through flame-hell for creating Angstrom, but
we kept going. Unfortunately, I have not been able to actually do anything
Angstrom-related (but advocacy) in the past 12 months, however I'd
like to stay associated with this project since I still hope that at
some point of time I can continue working on some user-friendly UI
components for Angstrom (like installer, first-usage wizard, and
bootmanager).

> I defineately think Rolf would be a good addition, a team always needs
> a devils advocate, and Rolf can do this with style.

Agreed. We just need to find a way to get the quarrels down to a
minimum. I like Richard's proposal about some mediating
infrastructure.

>> Thoughts, comments, suggestions and alternatives welcome.
>> 
> The alternative I fear is people start adding DISTRO that do
> include angstrom.conf
> REDEFINE_STUFF_WE_DONT_LIKE

> But they are all basically the same DISTRO with a fiddle.

> And maybe at OEDEM we hire some sumo suits to settle problems?

:D

Regards,

:M:
-- 
Michael 'Mickey' Lauer | IT-Freelancer | http://www.vanille-media.de

Re: Angstrom Core Team

[Todd Blumer]

All,
My company, SDG Systems, has previously used Familiar for our released
products and we recognize that Familiar is now a shadow of its former
self. We plan to be involved in Angstrom releases. We also see that
Angstrom is the leading candidate moving forward and we plan to
contribute.

We have some special needs for our released distro (e.g. backwards
compatibility for our Qt users by supplying Qt4-X11 out of the box),
but our goal will be to use Angstrom as the base with just a meta
package on top.
--
Todd
irc: tnb

On 7/23/07, Richard Purdie <rpurdie@rpsys.net> wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> As people will note, Laibsch (Rolf) has been frustrated by politics and
> personalities getting in the way of development and this is *bad*. I
> don't think anyone wants this.
>
> With this in mind I'd like to propose creating a formal core of Angstrom
> developers similar to that which exists in OE (and has seemed to work
> well as far as I know).
>
> The core team is basically a group of developers who can collectively
> guide the project. At the moment the leadership for Angstrom is unclear
> and this would clarify that and mean that a solid structure is
> established.
>
> Whilst I can't really call myself an Angstrom developer exactly, I do
> have a vested interest in seeing it become a success. Why is Angstrom
> important? Most of the other handheld distributions in OpenEmbedded were
> lining themselves up to work under the Angstrom banner. Familiar and
> OpenZaurus are dead projects and all hopes for handhelds support from OE
> now rest on Angstrom's shoulders. OE therefore has a vested interest in
> Angstrom and this is one reason I want to see it succeed. I also think
> it has massive potential if done correctly.
>
> What I don't want is anyone feeling the need for yet-another-distro
> which would be the next step is Angstrom's leadership cannot be made
> clear. This leads to fragmentation which is bad.
>
> So who should be on the core team? My thoughts are that Koen is an
> obvious candidate. I'd propose Marcin/hrw (experience from OZ),
> Graeme/XorA (developer/user) and Rod Whitby/rwhitby (to represent the
> other non handhelds that Angstrom supports). I'd also propose inviting
> Rolf/laibsch if he does consider coming back to the project.
>
> Membership of the core team probably doesn't involve too much work, you
> just need to care about the project, be involved with it in some way and
> be prepared to make decisions now and again and make sure the project
> agrees on a direction.
>
> Thoughts, comments, suggestions and alternatives welcome.
>
> I do think Angstrom needs some kind of formalised leadership though.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>

Re: [Angstrom-devel] Angstrom Core Team

[Marcin Juszkiewicz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3613 bytes --]

Dnia poniedziałek, 23 lipca 2007, Richard Purdie napisał:

> As people will note, Laibsch (Rolf) has been frustrated by politics and
> personalities getting in the way of development and this is *bad*. I
> don't think anyone wants this.

Losing developers is always harm. Losing valueable ones is even more harm.

> With this in mind I'd like to propose creating a formal core of
> Angstrom developers similar to that which exists in OE (and has seemed
> to work well as far as I know).

+1 from me

> The core team is basically a group of developers who can collectively
> guide the project. At the moment the leadership for Angstrom is unclear
> and this would clarify that and mean that a solid structure is
> established.

When we will create core team we will need to create documentation team 
which need to consist atleast one core developer and users interested in 
writing documentation. It was working in last OpenZaurus releases so I 
did not had to spend time on docs. Which method to use is what I would 
leave for doc team. It can be drupal or any wiki as long as it allow to 
protect pages from editing of people without proper rights. Personally I 
do not care about which tool is used as long as it works and does not mix 
with other projects.

> Whilst I can't really call myself an Angstrom developer exactly, I do
> have a vested interest in seeing it become a success. Why is Angstrom
> important? Most of the other handheld distributions in OpenEmbedded
> were lining themselves up to work under the Angstrom banner. Familiar
> and OpenZaurus are dead projects and all hopes for handhelds support
> from OE now rest on Angstrom's shoulders. OE therefore has a vested
> interest in Angstrom and this is one reason I want to see it succeed. I
> also think it has massive potential if done correctly.

And there is also commercial way. As Todd Blumer wrote his company plans 
to use Ångström on their devices - there are other companies which looks 
at Ångström during work on own ones. We have a possibility to create one 
good distro for all our devices/toys.

> What I don't want is anyone feeling the need for yet-another-distro
> which would be the next step is Angstrom's leadership cannot be made
> clear. This leads to fragmentation which is bad.

Right - currently we have 4 distros in OE which use Ångström 
configurations (FooNAS, MokoSlug, Mamona, amsdelta-oe) - they are more or 
less same as our but use other names due to marketing (FooNAS, Mamona I 
think). I hope that we can merge them one day so only names and some 
images, tweaks will left from them.

> So who should be on the core team? My thoughts are that Koen is an
> obvious candidate. I'd propose Marcin/hrw (experience from OZ),
> Graeme/XorA (developer/user) and Rod Whitby/rwhitby (to represent the
> other non handhelds that Angstrom supports). I'd also propose inviting
> Rolf/laibsch if he does consider coming back to the project.

I as thinking about few other persons more:

- Mickeyl as one of Ångström founders and representant of commercial 
distro (which has plans to merge with us)
- CoreDump - but some people will not agree and I think that he prefers to 
work on getting distro working his way (I expect Hengtes distro release 
after we release)
- Paul Sokolovski came to my mind too - he maintain many of our target 
devices and spent lot of time to get OPIE working in our distro


-- 
JID: hrw-jabber.org
OpenEmbedded developer/consultant

    42? 7 and a half million years and all you can come up with is 42?!

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 196 bytes --]

Re: [Angstrom-devel] Angstrom Core Team

[Matthias Hentges]

Am Montag, den 23.07.2007, 22:38 +0100 schrieb Richard Purdie:
> Hi Guys,
> 
> As people will note, Laibsch (Rolf) has been frustrated by politics and
> personalities getting in the way of development and this is *bad*. I
> don't think anyone wants this.

[...]
      * 
> Whilst I can't really call myself an Angstrom developer exactly, I do
> have a vested interest in seeing it become a success. Why is Angstrom
> important? Most of the other handheld distributions in OpenEmbedded were
> lining themselves up to work under the Angstrom banner. Familiar and
> OpenZaurus are dead projects and all hopes for handhelds support from OE
> now rest on Angstrom's shoulders. OE therefore has a vested interest in
> Angstrom and this is one reason I want to see it succeed. I also think
> it has massive potential if done correctly.

ACK

> What I don't want is anyone feeling the need for yet-another-distro
> which would be the next step is Angstrom's leadership cannot be made
> clear. This leads to fragmentation which is bad.

Agreed, the developer resources are already spread thin. Forking (or
semi-forks as in "include angstrom.conf ; OVERRIDE_THE_HELL_OUT_OF_IT)
would possibly (but not necessarily!) spread them even thinner. 

> So who should be on the core team? My thoughts are that Koen is an
> obvious candidate. 
> I'd propose Marcin/hrw (experience from OZ),
> Graeme/XorA (developer/user) and Rod Whitby/rwhitby (to represent the
> other non handhelds that Angstrom supports). I'd also propose inviting
> Rolf/laibsch if he does consider coming back to the project.

Excellent choice, but you of course forgot Dr. Mickey ;)

> Membership of the core team probably doesn't involve too much work, you
> just need to care about the project, be involved with it in some way and
> be prepared to make decisions now and again and make sure the project
> agrees on a direction.
> 
> Thoughts, comments, suggestions and alternatives welcome.

The committee should meet on a regular schedule via IRC or alternatively
via a mailing list and discuss concerns at hand. If members can not
agree on a certain outcome, the majority vote decides and all members
accept the decision derived from that vote.

This should defuse the current situation quite a bit as there will be no
more flame-wars on the ML about "secret" talks, etc.

If you are on the core-team, you _will_ get to vote and express your
opinion on important matters and nobody will feel "left out".

> I do think Angstrom needs some kind of formalised leadership though.

I guess on this we can all agree.

-- 
Matthias 'CoreDump' Hentges 
Cologne / Germany

Webmaster of Hentges.net & Embedded Linux Developer
GPG ->  gpg --keyserver gpg-keyserver.de --recv-keys 0xAF3030D9

My OS: Debian SID: Geek by Nature, Linux by Choice

Re: [Angstrom-devel] Angstrom Core Team

[Stelios Koroneos]

I believe there is a need to formalise things, if we want to move to the
next step, which IMHO is a "universal" acceptance of OE/Angstrom for
embedded devices
The last part is also something that has been puzzling me for sometime now.

What are the "core" targets of Angstrom as a distribution ?
At the beggining it looked to me as a PDA targeted distro, the console image
was bloated and "unsuitable" for embedded targets with limited resources
(i.e devices like the wrt, magicbox etc) but with minimal-image and the
changes it introduced this "bloat" has been removed at a large extend.
Still there are issues but now we can get an image that fits on a 4MB flash
and is working

A lot of the "clone" distro's (and i include ours, OPLinux in that category)
where created because although we would like to use OE/Angstrom, the bloat
problem existed and also (and most importand) .dev was a fast moving target
where changes happened at lighting speed and there was no control over them
(at least from our side).

Having the latest/gratest/cutting edge version is good but a lot of the time
it means breaking stuff that worked.
If that happens and you are hobbiest doing stuff/coding/hacking on your
spare time its not a big deal, but if you are a company and need to ship
things to your client at a certain date and  that happens, its a *big*
problem.

There are also, a lot of different needs out there and people have different
ideas of what "embedded" is, and from experience if you try to cover all of
these needs you are bound to fail.
There are people that want OPIE others that want GPE and other that are
looking for X + custom applications just to mention a few.
So i believe that among the other things proposed for the core team, would
be to define what is the  Angstrom goal/targets are, get a stable version
and define a release cycle.
Without these things clearly defined,people will keep creating "clone"
distro's of Angstrom whatever you or me think about it and its going to
spread the availiable resources even thinner.


Stelios S. Koroneos

Digital OPSiS - Embedded Intelligence
http://www.digital-opsis.com

Re: [Angstrom-devel] Angstrom Core Team

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stelios Koroneos schreef:
> I believe there is a need to formalise things, if we want to move to the
> next step, which IMHO is a "universal" acceptance of OE/Angstrom for
> embedded devices
> The last part is also something that has been puzzling me for sometime now.
> 
> What are the "core" targets of Angstrom as a distribution ?
> At the beggining it looked to me as a PDA targeted distro, the console image
> was bloated

You hit the nail on the head, the console *image* was bloated, not the DISTRO.

> and "unsuitable" for embedded targets with limited resources
> (i.e devices like the wrt, magicbox etc) but with minimal-image and the
> changes it introduced this "bloat" has been removed at a large extend.

Right, a problem was solved by creating a new *image*, not a new DISTRO.

> Still there are issues but now we can get an image that fits on a 4MB flash
> and is working

Don't confuse 'DISTRO' with '<foo>-image', a distro defines policy (e.g EABI for arm,
toolchain, etc), an image content[1][3]. Lots of people get this wrong, so you might see
it repeated a few times in this mail ;)
Historically machines, images and distros were putting random crap in task-bootstrap,
which is why we introduced task-base (and watch it like a bunch of hungry vultures) and
removed task-bootstrap. But that's ancient history now :)


> A lot of the "clone" distro's (and i include ours, OPLinux in that category)
> where created because although we would like to use OE/Angstrom, the bloat
> problem existed

The *images* were bloated, not the DISTRO.

> and also (and most importand) .dev was a fast moving target
> where changes happened at lighting speed

That is indeed a big problem, which we want to tackle from the OE side with regular
tarball releases and autobuilds[2]. See the guadec meeting notes on that.
Suggestions from commercial users are *very* welcome on this subject.

> and there was no control over them (at least from our side).

Do you mean approval-wise or time-wise? I mentioned http://review-board.org/ at guadec,
which would be an option for reviewing invasive changes.

> Having the latest/gratest/cutting edge version is good but a lot of the time
> it means breaking stuff that worked.

That's why anstrom features this:

koen@bitbake:~/OE/monotone/org.openembedded.dev/conf/distro$ grep PREFERRED_VERSION
angstrom-2007.1.conf | wc -l
56

The important stuff is locked down to reduce surprises. For the usual .dev breakage we
can't do much, except publishing changelogs and doing autobuilds.

> If that happens and you are hobbiest doing stuff/coding/hacking on your
> spare time its not a big deal, but if you are a company and need to ship
> things to your client at a certain date and  that happens, its a *big*
> problem.

That's why we need autobuilds for common platforms and targets so we can spot errors early
on. Once spotted we document them and try to fix them.

> There are also, a lot of different needs out there and people have different
> ideas of what "embedded" is, and from experience if you try to cover all of
> these needs you are bound to fail.

That's why we need people from each area to look after that.

> There are people that want OPIE others that want GPE and other that are
> looking for X + custom applications just to mention a few.

Again, don't confuse 'DISTRO' with '<foo>-image'.

> So i believe that among the other things proposed for the core team, would
> be to define what is the  Angstrom goal/targets are, get a stable version
> and define a release cycle.

Before worrying about a release cycle, I'd think about maintenance cycles. How are we
going to support a release? How will we introduce updates? Once the first release is out
we can argue feature-based versus time-based to death, but the maintenance issue needs to
get solved first.
Marcin and I realized that doing updates the familiar- or openzaurus-way is not going to
work for angstrom, so something new needs the be created (or stolen from other distros).

> Without these things clearly defined,people will keep creating "clone"
> distro's of Angstrom whatever you or me think about it and its going to
> spread the availiable resources even thinner.

Most people that create clone distros are confusing 'DISTRO' with '<foo>-image'. We can
solve that with education and dialog.
I'd like to encourage people to write more image recipes that suit their needs which we
can review and try to make more generic. Paul S is doing that for initrd/initramfs recipes
right now.

Currently there are a few situations where a clone is the way to go, e.g. for things
requiring gtk 2.6 like the LiPS/gpephone image. I think we can craft and image that does
exactly that or introduce a flag like ANGSTROM_MODE that automagically does the right
stuff when set in local.conf. But someone needs to figure that out first, so creating a
clone is a good intermediate solution, as long as all sides agree on that.

Personally I'd like to get angstrom running well on things like AVR32, blackfin, small
arm7 systems, etc and also ad-hoc toolchains like msp430, arm-wince-pe and friends. Other
people want it to run on PDAs and phone or routers or set top boxes or server or ... or
... I know angstrom can support all that as a *distro*, but people will need to invest
time and effort into writing reusable tasks and images for that.


I hope people will starting thinking 'images' and not 'DISTRO' from now on :) I know it
requires more effort in the short run, but it pays off in the long run.

One last thing: autobuilds, autobuilds, autobuilds

regards,

Koen

[1] More or less, you get the idea
[2] Depending on the manpower (read: funding of fulltime OE devs) a 'stable' branch is an
option
[3] Don't you love how I further the confusion by creating angstrom-<foo>-image.bb?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFGpl8zMkyGM64RGpERAhvSAKCkRt1dOeEF3qoKtnWxSTfj2NvjtgCfaubE
/dG1Jk3zO88XvD8gWrzMDb0=
=USKm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [Angstrom-devel] Angstrom Core Team

[Richard Purdie]

On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 22:21 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Stelios Koroneos schreef:
> > I believe there is a need to formalise things, if we want to move to the
> > next step, which IMHO is a "universal" acceptance of OE/Angstrom for
> > embedded devices
> > The last part is also something that has been puzzling me for sometime now.
> > 
> > What are the "core" targets of Angstrom as a distribution ?
> > At the beggining it looked to me as a PDA targeted distro, the console image
> > was bloated
> 
> You hit the nail on the head, the console *image* was bloated, not the DISTRO.

I just want to add my support for what Koen has said in this reply. Its
probably one of the most to the point mails I've see in a while. 

I hope everyone has read and understood it as a lot of current problems
are due to misunderstandings and that mail highlights them and shows
good solutions.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [Angstrom-devel] Angstrom Core Team

[Cliff Brake]

On 7/24/07, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.kabel.utwente.nl> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Stelios Koroneos schreef:

> That is indeed a big problem, which we want to tackle from the OE side with regular
> tarball releases and autobuilds[2]. See the guadec meeting notes on that.
> Suggestions from commercial users are *very* welcome on this subject.

I have implemented OE (and Angstrom in more recent projects) in at
least 7 embedded projects.  Overall, it has a been a great success
compared to any other method for getting Linux on embedded devices.
Sure there is occasional breakage, but in my experience, it has been
pretty rare -- especially for mainstream stuff.  For what I do, the
availability of _lots_ of current package in my mind far outweighs the
occasional breakage.  As a project, OE still has limited resources, so
I think our time is best spent moving things forward, and doing
autobuilds to keep the quality up.  I recently added a bunch of disk
space to my build machine and hope to contribute more to the autobuild
effort.

> One last thing: autobuilds, autobuilds, autobuilds

Agreed!

Cliff

-- 
=======================
Cliff Brake
http://bec-systems.com

Re: [Angstrom-devel] Angstrom Core Team

[Florian Boor]

Hi,

Matthias Hentges schrieb:

>> I do think Angstrom needs some kind of formalised leadership though.
> 
> I guess on this we can all agree.

That's what makes Angström a good successor for Familiar... I still remember the
reaction when I raised this topic on the Familiar development mailinglist.

greetings

Florian

-- 
The dream of yesterday                  Florian Boor
is the hope of today                    Tel: +49 271-771091-15
and the reality of tomorrow.            Fax: +49 271-771091-19
[Robert Hutchings Goddard, 1904]        florian.boor@kernelconcepts.de

1D78 2D4D 6C53 1CA4 5588  D07B A8E7 940C 25B7 9A76

Re: Angstrom Core Team

[Rod Whitby]

Richard Purdie wrote:
> With this in mind I'd like to propose creating a formal core of Angstrom
> developers similar to that which exists in OE (and has seemed to work
> well as far as I know).

I fully support this proposal.

-- Rod

Re: Angstrom Core Team

[Todd Blumer]

On 7/23/07, Richard Purdie <rpurdie@rpsys.net> wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> As people will note, Laibsch (Rolf) has been frustrated by politics and
> personalities getting in the way of development and this is *bad*. I
> don't think anyone wants this.
>
> With this in mind I'd like to propose creating a formal core of Angstrom
> developers similar to that which exists in OE (and has seemed to work
> well as far as I know).
>

Where do things stand on the Angstrom core team? Does Angstrom have a
planned release date? Will it create a branch from oe.dev for
maintenance?
--
Todd

Re: [Angstrom-devel] Angstrom Core Team

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Todd Blumer schreef:
> On 7/23/07, Richard Purdie <rpurdie@rpsys.net> wrote:
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> As people will note, Laibsch (Rolf) has been frustrated by politics and
>> personalities getting in the way of development and this is *bad*. I
>> don't think anyone wants this.
>>
>> With this in mind I'd like to propose creating a formal core of Angstrom
>> developers similar to that which exists in OE (and has seemed to work
>> well as far as I know).
>>
> 
> Where do things stand on the Angstrom core team?

We're waiting for Mickey to create the mailinglist and stuff.

> Does Angstrom have a planned release date? 

Not yet

>Will it create a branch from oe.dev for maintenance?

The current plan is to create a branch after release and share that with openmoko.

regards,

Koen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFG1CewMkyGM64RGpERAvcCAJ9DuagwCG8+6SfIVmjNLNOoyXkCOgCgkmr/
YXIG5diwSgkEDI1/MJmKNDc=
=BKf6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----