Tommy Nguyen kirjoitti 15.9.2022 klo 17.40:
On Sep 15, 2022, at 10:26 AM, Otto Liljalaakso <otto.liljalaa...@iki.fi> wrote:
So maybe it is just that, for Fedora 36 at least, RPM Fusion it not compatible
with the new crypto settings.
I also see the following key ids in the errors I reported in the original
message. How can I check what those are, more RPM Fusion keys?
6dc1be18
d651ff2e
94843c65
A while back I reported the issue and someone said that it has to do with their
sub key. Not much that can be done except report it to rpmfusion (unless it’s
already been done).
I tried searching bugzilla.rpmfusion.org, but could not find anything
that looks relevant. I also wanted to search the mailing lists, but
apparently, at the moment, RPM Fusion is not publicly archiving its
mailing lists [1].
[1]: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4759#c5
Anyhow, I did some more research. It looks like RPM Fusion has switched
signing packages with SHA256, but in their repository for Fedora 36,
there are older builds around that still use SHA1. At least the SHA1
ones that I found are older than the SHA256 ones.
RPM Fusion Fedora 37 repository seems to be all SHA256 already.
So, it looks like there is nothing to fix here, except maybe adding some
note to testing instructions.
In order to identify the rest of the keys, try:
rpm -qa gpg-pubkey\*
rpm -qi gpg-pubkey-keyid-goeshere
Thanks, they are all from RPM Fusion.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
