udev rules help

hi i'm trying to write udev rule to start service when usb device is attached here's what i got. yet it doesn't work # grep add /etc/udev/rules.d/80-idcard.rules SUBSYSTEM=="usb", ACTION=="add", ENV{DEVTYPE}=="usb_device", ENV{ID_MODEL}=="*Smart*Card*Reader*", RUN+="/sbin/service pcscd start"

Re: %config loses

> On Aug 30, 2016, at 3:51 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > >> On Aug 30, 2016, at 3:48 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: >> >> On 30.08.2016 22:34, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >>> Fix the following flaws in your bug report (sic). >> this is not bugreport. complete

Re: %config loses

> On Aug 30, 2016, at 3:48 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > On 30.08.2016 22:34, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> Fix the following flaws in your bug report (sic). > this is not bugreport. complete reproducer and expectations were sent in > previous thread. > >> 2) Don’t use -F

Re: %config loses

On 30.08.2016 22:34, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: Fix the following flaws in your bug report (sic). this is not bugreport. complete reproducer and expectations were sent in previous thread. 2) Don’t use -F —freshen; instead use -U —update. -U will install any packages matched, -F installs only

Re: %config loses

> On Aug 30, 2016, at 12:34 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > just reminder, that old bug never got resolved. > I am reminded. Fix the following flaws in your bug report (sic). 0) You refuse to report through recommended rpm5.org bug reporting, either at

%config loses

just reminder, that old bug never got resolved. and i'm certain it happens if you upgrade packages %config %verify with multiple package names i.e in the command below there were multiple matches for poldek, poldek-libs packages 19:31:40 root[load: 0.05]@jenkins-vm /vagrant# rpm -Fhv *.rpm

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

> On Aug 30, 2016, at 7:47 AM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:56:43 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >>> Is there any macro/option that prevents me from installing any >>> unsigned/unverified package? >> >> The question as asked cannot be answered: all

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:56:43 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> Is there any macro/option that prevents me from installing any >> unsigned/unverified package? > > The question as asked cannot be answered: all (RPM5 built) packages are signed > and (w/o ???nosignatures) the signature will be

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 07:19:11 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> It would be nice to have some tool to import from hkp:// directly. I did >> lynx/wget/vi magic to fetch them, how to do this straight from codlin? > > The tool already exists. E.g. > > rpm ???import 0x01234567 > > or > >

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

> > It would be nice to have some tool to import from hkp:// directly. I did > lynx/wget/vi magic to fetch them, how to do this straight from codlin? The tool already exists. E.g. rpm —import 0x01234567 or rpm —import 0x0123456789abcdef But that won’t do you much good if you

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

>> >> > > If so, rpm should either ignore secondary key or refuse to install such > joint at all. > RPM *does* ignore secondary keys. And look carefully at this well-formed pubkey (scroll through the page) http://keys.niif.hu/pks/lookup?op=vindex=0x0B7F8B60E3EDFAE3 It is not at

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:56:43 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > The 2 line snippet is DNS to port 53 ??? disabling hkp:// is an entirely > different > functionality than disabling signature verification. I didn't want to disable it (on contrary, I need them to be unconditional), just to make

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

> On Aug 30, 2016, at 6:44 AM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 06:30:24 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >>> But I believe the PLD-Th-GPG issue was discussed in spring 2015 on >>> pld-devel. >> >> This was the issue I was remembering: >> >>

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 06:41:39 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> Let me guess for the last time: if handled properly, >> rpm --import PLD-3.0-Th-GPG-key.asc >> should result in 2 gpg-pubkeys in rpm database. There is one, not working. > > There are no circumstances that a single >

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

On 30.08.2016 12:17, Tomasz Pala wrote: Apparently noone here uses this... http://ftp.th.pld-linux.org/dists/th/PLD-3.0-Th-GPG-key.asc it is used to sign all packages in th... ~: rpm -qp --nosignature keepassx-2.0.2-2.x86_64.rpm (reversed meaning in query mode bug) error:

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 06:30:24 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> But I believe the PLD-Th-GPG issue was discussed in spring 2015 on pld-devel. > > This was the issue I was remembering: > > http://pld-devel-en.pld-linux.narkive.com/ZssnN7t4/rpm-va-bad-key-id > > That specific issue was

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

> > Let me guess for the last time: if handled properly, > rpm --import PLD-3.0-Th-GPG-key.asc > should result in 2 gpg-pubkeys in rpm database. There is one, not working. > There are no circumstances that a single rpm —import will result in multiple pubkeys being imported into

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 06:01:35 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > Um, please stop guessing at the cause. Well, that is the actual content of PLD-3.0-Th-GPG-key.asc. Signatures match: pub 1024D/E4F1BC2D 2008-02-13 uidDSApub (PLD Linux Distribution 3.0 (Th))

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

> > But I believe the PLD-Th-GPG issue was discussed in spring 2015 on pld-devel. > This was the issue I was remembering: http://pld-devel-en.pld-linux.narkive.com/ZssnN7t4/rpm-va-bad-key-id That specific issue was resolved by disabling signature verification during —verify, largely

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

> On Aug 30, 2016, at 5:57 AM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 11:50:45 +0200, Tomasz Pala wrote: > >>> D: PUB: AF3F93BC E4F1BC2D V4 DSA >>> D: SIG: AF3F93BC E4F1BC2D V4 DSA-SHA1 POSITIVE >>> D: PUB: 732FDFDE EAE6F8B8 V4 RSA >>> D: SIG: 732FDFDE

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 11:50:45 +0200, Tomasz Pala wrote: >> D: PUB: AF3F93BC E4F1BC2D V4 DSA >> D: SIG: AF3F93BC E4F1BC2D V4 DSA-SHA1 POSITIVE >> D: PUB: 732FDFDE EAE6F8B8 V4 RSA >> D: SIG: 732FDFDE EAE6F8B8 V4 RSA-SHA1 POSITIVE >> D: UID: RSApub (PLD Linux Distribution 3.0 (Th))

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

> On Aug 30, 2016, at 5:17 AM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 03:24:02 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >>> ~: strace -erecvfrom rpm --nosignature -qp keepassx-2.0.2-2.x86_64.rpm >>> recvfrom(12, "\25\24\201\200\0\1\0\5\0\0\0\0\2ha\4pool\16sks-keyserv"..., >>>

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 11:38:07 +0200, Tomasz Pala wrote: > D: PUB: AF3F93BC E4F1BC2D V4 DSA > D: SIG: AF3F93BC E4F1BC2D V4 DSA-SHA1 POSITIVE > D: UID: DSApub (PLD Linux Distribution 3.0 (Th)) > D: == DSA pubkey id af3f93bc e4f1bc2d (keyserver) > D:

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 11:17:01 +0200, Tomasz Pala wrote: >> The 2 line snippet looks like a pubkey lookup: undefine %_hkp_keyserver to >> disable the lookup > > Thanks, that did the trick - it interferes with my network-restricted > environment. I need all the verification to happen locally,

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 03:24:02 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> ~: strace -erecvfrom rpm --nosignature -qp keepassx-2.0.2-2.x86_64.rpm >> recvfrom(12, "\25\24\201\200\0\1\0\5\0\0\0\0\2ha\4pool\16sks-keyserv"..., >> 2048, 0, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(53), >>

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 03:05:36 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > If ??? as claimed ??? that ???nosignature now has inverted meaning, > then that is a bug with POPT option processing (which likely is doing XOR > on a static bit that has now changed from 1 -> 0) OK, anyone close/familiar enough

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

> On Aug 29, 2016, at 6:53 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > > Should this work this way? Is it upstream bug or PLD-specific? How about > RH-rpm? > I need more info if you think its an RPM bug. The implementations in RH-rpm and RPM5 are significantly different. For starters, RPM5

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

> On Aug 29, 2016, at 10:19 PM, Kacper Kornet wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:53:49AM +0200, Tomasz Pala wrote: >> Should this work this way? Is it upstream bug or PLD-specific? How about >> RH-rpm? > > >> ~: strace -erecvfrom rpm -qp keepassx-2.0.2-2.x86_64.rpm