Hi,
On 19-08-19 22:20, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
Le lun. 19 août 2019 à 22:10, Hans de Goede <j.w.r.dego...@gmail.com> a écrit :
Hi,
On 19-08-19 21:30, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
Le lun. 19 août 2019 à 21:15, Hans de Goede <j.w.r.dego...@gmail.com> a écrit :
Hi All,
When I try to do an update on a rawhide/F31 install I get:
Package d2x-1.43-22.rebirth_v0.60.20181218gitaf25483.fc31.x86_64.rpm is not
signed
Package doom-shareware-1.9-17.s.fc31.noarch.rpm is not signed
Package faac-1.29.9.2-7.fc31.x86_64.rpm is not signed
Package fdk-aac-2.0.0-3.fc31.x86_64.rpm is not signed
Package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-nonfree-1.16.0-2.fc31.x86_64.rpm is not signed
Package lha-1.14i-35.20161015git6f6cbc1.fc31.x86_64.rpm is not signed
Package libunrar-5.7.4-2.fc31.x86_64.rpm is not signed
Package mac-libs-4.11-8.u4b5.fc31.x86_64.rpm is not signed
Package pyskool-1.2.1-5.fc31.noarch.rpm is not signed
Package roadfighter-1.0.1269-16.fc31.x86_64.rpm is not signed
Package spear-demo-1-11.fc31.noarch.rpm is not signed
Package steam-1.0.0.61-3.fc31.i686.rpm is not signed
Package unrar-5.7.4-2.fc31.x86_64.rpm is not signed
Package vice-3.2-5.fc31.x86_64.rpm is not signed
Package vice-common-3.2-5.fc31.x86_64.rpm is not signed
Package vice-data-3.2-5.fc31.noarch.rpm is not signed
Package vice-x128-3.2-5.fc31.x86_64.rpm is not signed
Package vice-x64-3.2-5.fc31.x86_64.rpm is not signed
Package vice-xcbm-ii-3.2-5.fc31.x86_64.rpm is not signed
Package vice-xplus4-3.2-5.fc31.x86_64.rpm is not signed
Package vice-xvic-3.2-5.fc31.x86_64.rpm is not signed
Package wolf3d-shareware-1.4-10.fc31.noarch.rpm is not signed
And a few more.
The devel packages for free do seem to be signed ?
It's weird as packages shouldn't end unsigned in our repos (or the
repo itslef will fails to generate)
It could be that the yum.conf is pointing to the wrong key ?
I had that issue with the rawhide Fedora repo, now that that
is being signed with the f32 key, the errors are different then
if dnf misses the pub key it states so and it prints the pub key
the repo config points to. AFAICT this error really means the packages
are not signed.
So after poking around a bit and after updating
rpmfusion-[non]free-release* to get the new key, things work fine now,
even if I switch back to the -rawhide repos I was using before
weird.
One more remark, /etc/yum.repos.d/rpmfusion-[non]free-rawhide.repo
ship with gpgcheck=0 by default, but as my testing has just verified
the packages there are signed, so maybe we should change that to
gpgcheck=1 instead, as we do for the other repos?
We could turn gpgcheck=1 for rawhide indeed
(Now I would try to avoid to think about why it failed with gpg having
gpgcheck=0).
It failed for me with the "not signed" errors because I replaced the
gpgcheck=0 with gpgcheck=1 manually, sorry that I forgot to mention that
(I edited the mail several times as I was experimenting and got thing to
work and I ended up deleting the part where I said I had changed it to 1).
Regards,
Hans
_______________________________________________
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
