Well, what I did was using FAI 2.10.5 just 2 days ago to install ETCH -> no problems, no additional fix or hook,the fix is alredy in apt.conf.d
then I moved to beta, as it got into testing(etch) (too soon in my opinion) and from this point on, I`m experiencing problems now if I look at /tmp/target/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/ on the clients it says: f-t3-b-c-t-0a9:~# ls /tmp/target/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/70debconf /tmp/target/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/70debconf and ls /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/ 10fai 70debconf 90fai so the 10fai and 90fai is MISSING. ok now tell me how this is possible and how to quickfix it, so I can install my testmaschine and calm down some people who are getting littlebit nervous (including myself) because of project delays ;-) cheers juraj On Thursday 21 September 2006 14:34, Henning Sprang wrote: > On 9/21/06, Thomas Lange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:26:08 +0200, Juraj Holtak > > >>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > said: > > > as you can see from my previous email (fai-client), I have the same > > > problem with unsigned repositories even with your repositories for > > > the developer pool > > > > > > any idea what it could be? > > AFAIK since etch apt's default policy is to not install unsigned packages. > > We had a bug report in fai that the process we used to avoid this > shoud be removed. (somewhere in apt preferences or in the actual call > to apt, I am not sure). > It seems this bug report has been fixed, but the solution is causing > trouble to some users, even those who just want to use FAI's extra > repositories which are also unsigned. > > Look into apt preferences to fix that, mayve you have to write a hook > to put the right apt config in place before installing software. > > > No. ATM I do not have the time to look into the unsigned/signed > > repository topic. I hope that someone else will care about this. > > But didn't you put the mentioned fix in? > > As I said in the thread about the mentioned bug, I am not convinved > that forcing this stuff to people is helpful - security ignorant > admins will find enough ways to trash their infrastructure, and > security aware admins have lots of ways to set high security levels. > If we force (or, in this case, not unforce) signed repos, we must at > least be consequent and sign our own repository. > > Henning
