Below is the output for the methods I used to search for it, so I think we’re 
good.

C:\dev\flexjs\royale-asjs>gpg --keyserver https://pgp.mit.edu/ --search-keys 
F4CE36E979325A6221706DB0E86EF353F54FE093
gpg: data source: https://pgp.mit.edu:443
(1)     Yishay Weiss <yish...@apache.org>
          4096 bit RSA key E86EF353F54FE093, created: 2021-04-02, expires: 
2026-04-02
Keys 1-1 of 1 for "F4CE36E979325A6221706DB0E86EF353F54FE093".  Enter number(s), 
N)ext, or Q)uit > q
gpg: error searching keyserver: Operation cancelled
gpg: keyserver search failed: Operation cancelled

C:\dev\flexjs\royale-asjs>gpg --keyserver https://pgp.mit.edu/ --search-keys 
yish...@apache.org
gpg: data source: https://pgp.mit.edu:443
(1)     Yishay Weiss <yish...@apache.org>
          4096 bit RSA key E86EF353F54FE093, created: 2021-04-02, expires: 
2026-04-02

From: Harbs<mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 5:07 PM
To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.9 RC2

I searched using yish...@apache.org and I still get nothing.

Dunno...

> On Mar 9, 2022, at 4:53 PM, Yishay Weiss <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> It’s published. It’s the same key that was used for the previous release. I 
> think you just searched with the wrong email.
>
> From: Harbs<mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 3:54 PM
> To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.9 RC2
>
> I imported your key manually, and that worked, but you really should publish 
> it. Manual imports shouldn’t be necessary.
>
>> On Mar 9, 2022, at 3:33 PM, Yishay Weiss <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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:yishayj...@hotmail.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 3:18 PM
>> To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
>> 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:harbs.li...@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 3:07 PM
>> To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
>> 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 <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> No, that’s the one
>>>
>>> From: Harbs<mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com <mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com>>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 12:48 PM
>>> To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org 
>>> <mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>>
>>> 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 <harbs.li...@gmail.com> 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, apacheroyal...@gmail.com 
>>>>> <mailto:apacheroyal...@gmail.com> <mailto:apacheroyal...@gmail.com 
>>>>> <mailto:apacheroyal...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the discussion thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Yishay Weiss
>>
>

Reply via email to