On 18/3/18 1:06 am, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 03/17/18 21:51, Stephen Morris wrote:
> On 17/3/18 9:44 pm, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> On 03/17/18 18:26, Ed Greshko wrote:
>>> Package flash-plugin-29.0.0.113-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm is not signed
>>> The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next successful
transaction.
>>> You can remove cached packages by executing 'dnf clean packages'.
>>> Error: GPG check FAILED
>> Oh, I see I mis-read the error message. The package isn't signed.
>>
>> My flash-plugin package is
>>
>> flash-plugin-29.0.0.113-release.x86_64
>>
>> while you're trying to install
>>
>> flash-plugin-29.0.0.113-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
>>
>> Where did you get that package? It seems not from the Adobe repo.
> Thanks Ed, I had no idea about the command you suggested to search for the keys.
> The flash-plugin package I have installed is 28.0.0.161-Release: 1.fc27 and this
> one and the one the update is trying to install are from the Negativo17 Flash
> repository. The adobe repository has the version of flash you have installed, so
> I'll try and install that if dnfdragora/yumex offer it, otherwise I'll and
figure
> out how to get dnf to install that specific version. I'll also get in contact
with
> the Negativo17 flash repository maintainer and see if I can get the signing issue
> rectified. I thought I had keys from that repository installed when I added it, but
> your command is indicating differently.
>
>
Well, you very well may have the keys for Negativo17 but it is just that whoever is
the maintainer missed signing the RPM as the error states.
IMHO, since the flash-plugin is available directly from Adobe and their repo it makes
little sense to get it from Negativo17. I can't see how they would add value.
When I used dnfdragora to remove the 28.0.0 version from negativo17 and
install the 29.0.0 version from Adobe's repository, it told me the Adobe
version was a downgrade from the installed version, which I didn't
understand. I have now managed to get dnf to install all the updates
without it attempting to put on the negativo17 flash update.
I wasn't explicitly using the version of flash from negativo17, it was
an incidental process. Originally I was only using negativo17's steam,
handbrake and nvidia repositories, until they recommended replacing
their nvidia repository with their multimedia repository. A little while
ago I was getting a conflict between the xorg nvidia packages I had
installed and their nvidia package for xorg, and while I was
investigating how to resolve that (which I finished up resolving by
removing all the xorg nvidia packages) I found they had a .repo file
that contained definitions for all of their repositories, so, rather
than having multiple .repo files for their repositories I replaced them
with the single .repo file. As a result of this, having resolved the
nvidia packages conflict, I issued the dnf upgrade and it immediately
upgraded the Adobe flash I had installed at the time to the version that
was in the negativo17 flash repository.
regards,
Steve
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org