Mark Fletcher wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 09:51:18AM +0200, Sven Hartge wrote:
>> Mark Fletcher wrote:
>>> Possibly stupid question -- this is Jessie, does this mechanism of
>>> dropping the files in trusted.gpg.d work properly in Jessie or is it
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 01:24:59PM +0200, Frank wrote:
> Op 28-03-17 om 07:48 schreef Frank:
> Mark,
>
> As it turns out the ID 1397BC53640DB551 refers to a subkey of key
> 7721F63BD38B4796. Both seem to be present in google's key file, so I can't
> explain why apt ignores one of them.
> I'll
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 09:51:18AM +0200, Sven Hartge wrote:
> Mark Fletcher wrote:
>
> > Possibly stupid question -- this is Jessie, does this mechanism of
> > dropping the files in trusted.gpg.d work properly in Jessie or is it
> > new?
>
> It works properly. I have
Op 28-03-17 om 07:48 schreef Frank:
Op 28-03-17 om 00:57 schreef Mark Fletcher:
Right, for the key issue, that has taken me right back to where I
started:
W: There is no public key available for the following key IDs:
1397BC53640DB551
Odd. If you do a web search with that number, you'll find
Op 28-03-17 om 09:54 schreef Sven Hartge:
in this case we know this is the ID of Googles key, but my argument
still holds in general
In general, yes.
Frank wrote:
> Op 28-03-17 om 00:57 schreef Mark Fletcher:
>> Right, for the key issue, that has taken me right back to where I started:
>>
>> W: There is no public key available for the following key IDs:
>> 1397BC53640DB551
> Odd. If you do a web search with that number,
Mark Fletcher wrote:
> Possibly stupid question -- this is Jessie, does this mechanism of
> dropping the files in trusted.gpg.d work properly in Jessie or is it
> new?
It works properly. I have several hundred servers as proof.
Grüße,
Sven.
--
Sigmentation fault. Core
Op 28-03-17 om 00:57 schreef Mark Fletcher:
Right, for the key issue, that has taken me right back to where I started:
W: There is no public key available for the following key IDs:
1397BC53640DB551
Odd. If you do a web search with that number, you'll find a lot of posts
mentioning this
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 06:06:05PM +0200, Frank wrote:
> Op 27-03-17 om 17:14 schreef Mark Fletcher:
> >Well, switching from http.debian.net to deb.debian.org seems to have
> >fixed that one. The error relating to that has gone away.
>
> Don't be surprised if it comes back. I think it may just
Op 27-03-17 om 17:14 schreef Mark Fletcher:
Well, switching from http.debian.net to deb.debian.org seems to have
fixed that one. The error relating to that has gone away.
Don't be surprised if it comes back. I think it may just have selected a
different mirror now, but you can't be certain it
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 08:51:55PM +0200, Sven Hartge wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>
> > The hash sum mismatch is usually a passing issue: updating while the
> > repository/mirror itself is in the process of updating. If it keeps
> > showing up, that mirror is probably borked. Try
Mark Fletcher wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 08:51:55PM +0200, Sven Hartge wrote:
>> Frank wrote:
>>> The hash sum mismatch is usually a passing issue: updating while the
>>> repository/mirror itself is in the process of updating. If it keeps
>>>
Op 27-03-17 om 01:23 schreef Mark Fletcher:
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 08:51:55PM +0200, Sven Hartge wrote:
Frank wrote:
The hash sum mismatch is usually a passing issue: updating while the
repository/mirror itself is in the process of updating. If it keeps
showing up, that
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 08:51:55PM +0200, Sven Hartge wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>
> > The hash sum mismatch is usually a passing issue: updating while the
> > repository/mirror itself is in the process of updating. If it keeps
> > showing up, that mirror is probably borked. Try
Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Sven Hartge wrote:
>> Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
>> > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Sven Hartge wrote:
No, please do NOT use "apt-key add"
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Sven Hartge wrote:
> Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Sven Hartge wrote:
> >> No, please do NOT use "apt-key add" but instead download the key and
> >> put it as a file
Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Sven Hartge wrote:
>> Frank wrote:
>> No, please do NOT use "apt-key add" but instead download the key and
>> put it as a file with the suffix ".gpg" into the directory
Hi.
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 13:56:54 -0500
Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Sven Hartge wrote:
>
> > Frank wrote:
> >
> > > wget -qO- https://dl.google.com/linux/linux_signing_key.pub | sudo
> > >
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Sven Hartge wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>
> > wget -qO- https://dl.google.com/linux/linux_signing_key.pub | sudo
> > apt-key add -
>
> No, please do NOT use "apt-key add" but instead download the key and put
> it as a file with
Frank wrote:
> The hash sum mismatch is usually a passing issue: updating while the
> repository/mirror itself is in the process of updating. If it keeps
> showing up, that mirror is probably borked. Try deb.debian.org instead
> of http.debian.net.
deb.debian.org,
Op 26-03-17 om 18:01 schreef Mark Fletcher:
Hello
When I run aptitude update I get, amongst the successful update reports,
the following error messages:
W: There is no public key available for the following key IDs:
1397BC53640DB551
W: Failed to fetch
Hello
When I run aptitude update I get, amongst the successful update reports,
the following error messages:
W: There is no public key available for the following key IDs:
1397BC53640DB551
W: Failed to fetch
http://http.debian.net/debian/dists/jessie-backports/main/i18n/Translation-enIndex:
22 matches
Mail list logo