On Sun May 25 2008, Mumia W.. wrote:
> Mr. Cartwright, you could force a downgrade of gnupg by using
> apt-pinning (documented in "man apt_preferences").
I looked at pinning once..
>
> You could also download the lenny gnupg package (1.4.6-2.2) manually and
> use dpkg's "--force-downgrade" option
On 05/25/2008 02:06 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Saturday 24 May 2008 02:27:01 pm Paul Cartwright wrote:
On Sat May 24 2008, Ron Johnson wrote:
If apt can't find gnupg, your system is totally screwed up.
ok, so I should screw Debian and try SUSE..
or do you have anything informative to say?
Th
On Sun May 25 2008, Paul Johnson wrote:
> That's about as obtuse of an interpretation as one could have possibly come
> up with. Ron is suggesting you have damaged your gnupg installation by
> compiling your own gpg over it. Remove your self-compiled gpg and use
> gnupg as designed.
yup, sorry a
On Saturday 24 May 2008 02:27:01 pm Paul Cartwright wrote:
> On Sat May 24 2008, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > If apt can't find gnupg, your system is totally screwed up.
>
> ok, so I should screw Debian and try SUSE..
> or do you have anything informative to say?
That's about as obtuse of an interpretat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/25/08 13:55, Paul Cartwright wrote:
> On Sun May 25 2008, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> # apt-get update
>
> Reading package lists... Done
>
>
>> # apt-cache policy gnupg
>
> ~# apt-cache policy gnupg
> gnupg:
> Installed: 1.4.9-1
> Candidate: 1.
On Sun May 25 2008, Ron Johnson wrote:
> # apt-get update
Reading package lists... Done
> # apt-cache policy gnupg
~# apt-cache policy gnupg
gnupg:
Installed: 1.4.9-1
Candidate: 1.4.9-1
Version table:
*** 1.4.9-1 0
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
1.4.6-2.2 0
990 http://ftp.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/25/08 12:51, Paul Cartwright wrote:
> On Sun May 25 2008, Osamu Aoki wrote:
[snip]
>
>> Oh, please remove backport if you are using lenny or sid.
>
> I did..
> someone else asked me to try these commands.. and it still can't find gnupg
> to
>
On Sun May 25 2008, Chris Bannister wrote:
> I'd comment it out. I think any packages you have installed from
> backports would probably have a later package in lenny.
>
> After commenting it out do an update and a dist-upgrade.
~# apt-get dist-upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building depend
On Sun May 25 2008, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> $ ls -l /var/lib/dpkg/info/gnupg*
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 19853 2007-09-30 13:04
> /var/lib/dpkg/info/gnupg-doc.list -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 28520 2007-09-30
> 13:06 /var/lib/dpkg/info/gnupg-doc.md5sums -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 602
> 2007-09-20 10:33 /var/l
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 08:34:44AM -0400, Paul Cartwright wrote:
> On Sun May 25 2008, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > > deb http://www.backports.org/debian/ etch-backports main contrib non-free
> >
> > Have you updated from etch -> lenny and have forgot to remove backports?
> >
> > --
>
> you are corr
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 08:16:23AM -0400, Paul Cartwright wrote:
> On Sun May 25 2008, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Did you verify with debsums as I said?
> >
> > $ debsums gnupg
>
> # debsums gnupg
> debsums: no md5sums for gnupg
How about
$ ls -l /var/lib/dpkg/info/gnupg*
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 198
On Sun May 25 2008, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > deb http://www.backports.org/debian/ etch-backports main contrib non-free
>
> Have you updated from etch -> lenny and have forgot to remove backports?
>
> --
you are correct, I did not remove backports. should I comment out the line, or
change it to
On Sun May 25 2008, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Did you verify with debsums as I said?
>
> $ debsums gnupg
# debsums gnupg
debsums: no md5sums for gnupg
--
Paul Cartwright
Registered Linux user # 367800
Registered Ubuntu User #12459
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "u
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 05:25:56PM -0400, Paul Cartwright wrote:
> ok, why couldn't I find it?# cat sources.list
> deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ lenny main contrib non-free
> deb http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian lenny main
>
> deb-src http://security.us.debian.org/ lenny/updates main cont
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 05:27:01PM -0400, Paul Cartwright wrote:
> On Sat May 24 2008, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > If apt can't find gnupg, your system is totally screwed up.
Did you verify with debsums as I said?
$ debsums gnupg
You claimed you did overwrite before. If that caused some problem, thi
On Sat May 24 2008, Ron Johnson wrote:
> That doesn't tell us anything. Try this:
>
> $ apt-cache policy gnupg
>
> --
# apt-cache policy gnupg
gnupg:
Installed: 1.4.9-1
Candidate: 1.4.9-1
Version table:
*** 1.4.9-1 0
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
1.4.6-2.2 0
990 http://ftp.
On Sat May 24 2008, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
> Well, what does it say if you run apt-get update, then apt-get install
> gnupg? Note also errors or anything else in the first command.
>
> What about apt-cache policy gnupg?
t# apt-get update
Hit http://security.us.debian.org lenny/updates Release
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/24/08 16:27, Paul Cartwright wrote:
> On Sat May 24 2008, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> If apt can't find gnupg, your system is totally screwed up.
>>
>> --
>
> ok, so I should screw Debian and try SUSE..
> or do you have anything informative to say?
T
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/24/08 16:25, Paul Cartwright wrote:
> On Sat May 24 2008, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
>>> Should I have come here first
>>> and asked why I couldn't find a package
>> In this particular case, yes, because this package should be available.
>> As a
Paul Cartwright wrote:
> On Sat May 24 2008, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
>
>>> Should I have come here first
>>> and asked why I couldn't find a package
>>>
>> In this particular case, yes, because this package should be available.
>> As a matter of fact, it should already be installed, b
On Sat May 24 2008, Ron Johnson wrote:
> If apt can't find gnupg, your system is totally screwed up.
>
> --
ok, so I should screw Debian and try SUSE..
or do you have anything informative to say?
--
Paul Cartwright
Registered Linux user # 367800
Registered Ubuntu User #12459
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
On Sat May 24 2008, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
> > Should I have come here first
> > and asked why I couldn't find a package
>
> In this particular case, yes, because this package should be available.
> As a matter of fact, it should already be installed, because it is
> required by debian-archive
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/24/08 14:24, Paul Cartwright wrote:
> On Sat May 24 2008, Osamu Aoki wrote:
[snip]
>
>> Checkinstall does not protect system from such brutal act. Checkinstall
>> is designed to install everything under one directory in /usr/local (or
>> possib
Paul Cartwright wrote:
> Should I have come here first
> and asked why I couldn't find a package
In this particular case, yes, because this package should be available.
As a matter of fact, it should already be installed, because it is
required by debian-archive-keyring, which in turn is required
On Sat May 24 2008, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> I do not understand your confidence. What do you mean "works". Just
> because it did not fail, it does not mean it worked right.
that is a distinct possibility.
>
> When you --prefix=/usr/bin , you already over wrote into non /usr/local
> lcation which is
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 11:41:49AM -0400, Paul Cartwright wrote:
> On Sat May 24 2008, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > I am updating it with new one. Its draft is here:
> >
> > http://people.debian.org/~osamu/pub/getwiki/html/ch03.en.html#basicprecauti
> >ons http://people.debian.org/~osamu/pub/getwiki/html
On Sat May 24 2008, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > it tells me gnupg is already the latest.. whats the FORCE command, or is
> > that possible..
>
> If you overwrite files in /usr/bin by make install, apt will not know that.
>
> Have you chacked with debsums to see files are really from Debian?
no, I used t
On Sat May 24 2008, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> I am updating it with new one. Its draft is here:
>
> http://people.debian.org/~osamu/pub/getwiki/html/ch03.en.html#basicprecauti
>ons http://people.debian.org/~osamu/pub/getwiki/html/ch13.en.html (See
> caution here)
nice reference, thanks!
and I did insta
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 09:10:41AM -0400, Paul Cartwright wrote:
> On Sat May 24 2008, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
> > > been so long now, either I couildn't find the magic apt-get install
> > > PACKAGE_NAME, then went to gnupg.org and downloaded 1.4.9, or... I really
> > > don't remember. The poin
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 10:44:52PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Well... "It works" and "It is properly configured" is different thing.
>
> Installig as such is something you should avoid.
>
> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/reference/ch-system.en.html#s-diverse
I am updating it with new one. It
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 09:04:29AM -0400, Paul Cartwright wrote:
> On Sat May 24 2008, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > > been so long now, either I couildn't find the magic apt-get install
> > > PACKAGE_NAME, then went to gnupg.org and downloaded 1.4.9, or... I really
> > > don't remember. The point is, once
On Sat May 24 2008, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
> > been so long now, either I couildn't find the magic apt-get install
> > PACKAGE_NAME, then went to gnupg.org and downloaded 1.4.9, or... I really
> > don't remember. The point is, once it was installed, kmail stopped
> > working. Then it was impos
On Sat May 24 2008, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > been so long now, either I couildn't find the magic apt-get install
> > PACKAGE_NAME, then went to gnupg.org and downloaded 1.4.9, or... I really
> > don't remember. The point is, once it was installed, kmail stopped
> > working. Then it was impossible to u
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 07:03:58AM -0400, Paul Cartwright wrote:
> On Sat May 24 2008, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > I recompiled using ./configure --prefix=/usr/bin
> >
> > Why, for $DEITY's sake, why??? If you're gonna build your own
> > packages, use Slackware.
>
> been so long now, either I co
Paul Cartwright wrote:
> On Sat May 24 2008, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
>>> I recompiled using ./configure --prefix=/usr/bin
>>>
>> Why, for $DEITY's sake, why??? If you're gonna build your own
>> packages, use Slackware.
>>
>
> been so long now, either I couildn't find the magic apt-
On Sat May 24 2008, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > I recompiled using ./configure --prefix=/usr/bin
>
> Why, for $DEITY's sake, why??? If you're gonna build your own
> packages, use Slackware.
been so long now, either I couildn't find the magic apt-get install
PACKAGE_NAME, then went to gnupg.org an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/23/08 21:26, Paul Cartwright wrote:
> On Fri May 23 2008, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> I'd remove the local installation of gpg before trying to dike out the
>> Debian one. Or use the reinstall option instead of trying to purge and
>> install again.
>
On Fri May 23 2008, Paul Johnson wrote:
> I'd remove the local installation of gpg before trying to dike out the
> Debian one. Or use the reinstall option instead of trying to purge and
> install again.
I recompiled using ./configure --prefix=/usr/bin
now it works.
the INSTALL file in gnupg say
On Friday 23 May 2008 06:59:50 pm Paul Cartwright wrote:
> On Fri May 23 2008, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > Why in $DEITY's name are you purging gnupg???
>
> I was told to try to purge the packages, and if that didn't work to
> reinstall them...
I'd remove the local installation of gpg before tr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/23/08 20:59, Paul Cartwright wrote:
> On Fri May 23 2008, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> Why in $DEITY's name are you purging gnupg???
>
> I was told to try to purge the packages, and if that didn't work to reinstall
> them...
You need to get r
On Fri May 23 2008, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Why in $DEITY's name are you purging gnupg???
I was told to try to purge the packages, and if that didn't work to reinstall
them...
--
Paul Cartwright
Registered Linux user # 367800
Registered Ubuntu User #12459
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EM
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/23/08 18:22, Paul Cartwright wrote:
> On Fri May 23 2008, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>> I'm not sure, maybe apt-get couldn't find it?
>>>
>>> # apt-get install gpg
>>> Reading package lists... Done
>>> Building dependency tree
>>> Reading state informa
On Fri May 23 2008, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > I'm not sure, maybe apt-get couldn't find it?
> >
> > # apt-get install gpg
> > Reading package lists... Done
> > Building dependency tree
> > Reading state information... Done
> > E: Couldn't find package gpg
>
> It's gnupg, not gpg.
wow, I tried the ap
On Friday 23 May 2008 03:17:42 pm Paul Cartwright wrote:
> On Fri May 23 2008, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > Why have you installed the non-Debian gpg?
>
> I'm not sure, maybe apt-get couldn't find it?
>
> # apt-get install gpg
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state inf
On Fri May 23 2008, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Why have you installed the non-Debian gpg?
I'm not sure, maybe apt-get couldn't find it?
# apt-get install gpg
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Couldn't find package gpg
--
Paul Cartwright
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/23/08 13:49, Paul Cartwright wrote:
> On Fri May 23 2008, Bob Cox wrote:
>>> While scanning for SMIME support backend GpgME:
>>> Engine /usr/bin/pgpsm is not installed properly
>>>
>>>
>>> locate pgp shows /usr/local/bin
>>> what am I doing wrong
On Fri May 23 2008, Bob Cox wrote:
> > While scanning for SMIME support backend GpgME:
> > Engine /usr/bin/pgpsm is not installed properly
> >
> >
> > locate pgp shows /usr/local/bin
> > what am I doing wrong?
>
> What does 'which gpg' show?
>
> I think you should be seeing /usr/bin/gpg (gpg, not
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 12:32:14 -0400, Paul Cartwright ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> I have gnupg 1.4.9 installed and kmail 1.9.9 on KDE 3.5.9
> when I try to go to SETTINGS-Configure kmail-Security the GpgME section is
> greyed out. When I hit rescan it tells me:
> While scanning for OpenPGP s
I have gnupg 1.4.9 installed and kmail 1.9.9 on KDE 3.5.9
when I try to go to SETTINGS-Configure kmail-Security the GpgME section is
greyed out. When I hit rescan it tells me:
While scanning for OpenPGP support backend GpgME:
Engine /usr/bin/pgp is not installed properly
While scanning for SMIME
49 matches
Mail list logo
