On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 04:07:42PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> I think in the latter two cases it's necessary to name the key fragments
> .asc or .gpg depending on the content, correct? Right now we do not have
> this distinction, so we'd need to somehow detect which one it is. Worst
> case using
On 5/21/18 3:06 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Philipp Kern (2018-05-21):
>> So what's the current contract with apt? ASCII-armored files need to go
>> into .asc and binary files into .gpg? Is the right way to infer ASCII
>> armor to grep for the preamble?
> That would match my
Hi,
Philipp Kern (2018-05-21):
> So what's the current contract with apt? ASCII-armored files need to go
> into .asc and binary files into .gpg? Is the right way to infer ASCII
> armor to grep for the preamble?
That would match my recollection of that issue (but don't trust
On 1/15/18 2:53 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> We should be fixing this bug to stop using apt-key, and start putting
> files under the right location with the right filename:
> https://bugs.debian.org/851774
>
> This would render the need for gnupg moot, as we would move away from
> using a
Cyril Brulebois @ 2018-01-15 (Monday), 02:53 (+0100)
https://bugs.debian.org/851774
Oh. I didn't realize there was a separate udeb package, with its own set of
bug reports. Thanks for leading me right. I've subscribed myself to that bug
to receive the updates.
Added (back) to my short
Hi,
Martin (2018-01-06):
> Using additional repositories by preseeding with apt-setup/local0/repository
> and apt-setup/local0/key is currently broken, causing the installation to
> fail with a non-obvious error message at a late stage of the install. The
>
Package: apt-setup
Version: 1:0.134
Using additional repositories by preseeding with apt-setup/local0/repository
and apt-setup/local0/key is currently broken, causing the installation to
fail with a non-obvious error message at a late stage of the install. The
reason seems to be that apt-key
7 matches
Mail list logo