The latest sos update is not signed:
[hughsie@hughsie-t61 packages]$ rpm -qp sos-1.9-1.fc12.noarch.rpm warning: sos-1.9-1.fc12.noarch.rpm: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 57bbccba: NOKEY
This causes PackageKit to barf. How come this update was pushed without a signature and all the other are fine?
Richard.
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:42:00 +0000, Richard wrote:
The latest sos update is not signed:
[hughsie@hughsie-t61 packages]$ rpm -qp sos-1.9-1.fc12.noarch.rpm warning: sos-1.9-1.fc12.noarch.rpm: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 57bbccba: NOKEY
That means you don't have the key installed:
$ rpm -Kv sos-1.9-1.fc12.noarch.rpm sos-1.9-1.fc12.noarch.rpm: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 signature: OK, key ID 57bbccba Header SHA1 digest: OK (db9c3b4d1c5a5990e1c4b72cbb4c76d7c65a25e9) V3 RSA/SHA256 signature: OK, key ID 57bbccba MD5 digest: OK (85ddf4a6d8615965a79f06e7f09be84c)
$ rpm -q gpg-pubkey-57bbccba gpg-pubkey-57bbccba-4a6f97af
This causes PackageKit to barf. How come this update was pushed without a signature and all the other are fine?
It is signed.
On 8 March 2010 10:59, Michael Schwendt mschwendt@gmail.com wrote:
That means you don't have the key installed:
This is a fresh F13 pre-alpha spin, updated last a few days ago.
$ rpm -Kv sos-1.9-1.fc12.noarch.rpm sos-1.9-1.fc12.noarch.rpm: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 signature: OK, key ID 57bbccba Header SHA1 digest: OK (db9c3b4d1c5a5990e1c4b72cbb4c76d7c65a25e9) V3 RSA/SHA256 signature: OK, key ID 57bbccba MD5 digest: OK (85ddf4a6d8615965a79f06e7f09be84c)
$ rpm -q gpg-pubkey-57bbccba gpg-pubkey-57bbccba-4a6f97af It is signed.
Sure, but doesn't 57BBCCBA indicate that it's a F12 signed package, not a F13 signed package? I don't appear to have the 4a6f97af signature installed by default on my fresh F13 (not upgraded from F12) workstation.
Richard.
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:20:45 +0000, Richard wrote:
That means you don't have the key installed:
This is a fresh F13 pre-alpha spin, updated last a few days ago.
$ rpm -Kv sos-1.9-1.fc12.noarch.rpm sos-1.9-1.fc12.noarch.rpm: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 signature: OK, key ID 57bbccba Header SHA1 digest: OK (db9c3b4d1c5a5990e1c4b72cbb4c76d7c65a25e9) V3 RSA/SHA256 signature: OK, key ID 57bbccba MD5 digest: OK (85ddf4a6d8615965a79f06e7f09be84c)
$ rpm -q gpg-pubkey-57bbccba gpg-pubkey-57bbccba-4a6f97af It is signed.
Sure, but doesn't 57BBCCBA indicate that it's a F12 signed package, not a F13 signed package?
True. It's a build inherited from F12, 2010-02-17, and should have been resigned appropriately: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-February/088750.html