> On Sep 10, 2016, at 7:48 AM, Tomasz Pala <go...@polanet.pl> wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 12:53:25 +0200, Tomasz Pala wrote: > >> our rpm and reverting it. Since nobody playing with rpm did this, my >> GUESS is, that: >> >> rpm-5.4.9-support-signatures-and-digest-disablers.patch >> >> is not enough/complete. And I've just found this (some 'triple negation' >> issues), as recently noted in >> http://rpm5.org/community/rpm-devel/5655.html >> >> Jeff, this seems to BE the case - verification is reverted only for >> --query mode, --verify mode works as expected. >> >> We might simply test this: >> >> https://patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/126825/raw/ > > Now it works as expected: > > ftp://ftp.th.pld-linux.org/dists/th/.test-builds/x86_64/rpm-5.4.15-35.x86_64.rpm > ftp://ftp.th.pld-linux.org/dists/th/.test-builds/x86_64/rpm-lib-5.4.15-35.x86_64.rpm > ftp://ftp.th.pld-linux.org/dists/th/.test-builds/x86_64/rpm-utils-5.4.15-35.x86_64.rpm >
What was the fix? AFAIK, the problem was concatenating both an armored RSA and a DSA pubkey in the same file. Separate files (or separate "rpm —import 0x…” by keyid using hkp://) are “fixes”. 73 de Jeff _______________________________________________ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
