If you look here [1], then you need to import the last one (one after yours). You can search the fingerprint [2].
[1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/royale/KEYS [2] F4CE36E979325A6221706DB0E86EF353F54FE093 From: Yishay Weiss<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 3:18 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.9 RC2 My mistake, it was created on 2021-04-02, so I couldn’t have been published on April 13, 2020. How did you determine that it was the most current published key? From: Harbs<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 3:07 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.9 RC2 Well, I don’t know why the gpg check is failing for me. I’ll wait until someone else checks the release. If it works for others, I’ll assume it’s a problem locally for me and see if I can fix it... > On Mar 9, 2022, at 1:13 PM, Yishay Weiss <[email protected]> wrote: > > No, that’s the one > > From: Harbs<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 12:48 PM > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.9 RC2 > > I seem to have your key from April 13, 2020. That seems to be the most > current published key. > > Did you use a newer one? > >> On Mar 9, 2022, at 12:43 PM, Harbs <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I got an error here: >> >> check-sigs: >> >> gpg_check: >> gpg: Signature made Tue Mar 8 08:59:15 2022 IST >> gpg: using RSA key F4CE36E979325A6221706DB0E86EF353F54FE093 >> gpg: key E86EF353F54FE093: new key but contains no user ID - skipped >> gpg: Total number processed: 1 >> gpg: w/o user IDs: 1 >> gpg: Can't check signature: No public key >> >> Did you not publish your key, or do I need to import it? >> >>> On Mar 8, 2022, at 10:28 AM, [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> This is the discussion thread. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Yishay Weiss
