On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:27 AM Paul Dufresne via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> I tried to upgrade from F30 to F32 without doing updates first, and I got:
> gnome-software[2045]: not handling error download-failed for action
> refine: failed to refine distro upgrade: Failed to do
I tried to upgrade from F30 to F32 without doing updates first, and I got:
gnome-software[2045]: not handling error download-failed for action
refine: failed to refine distro upgrade: Failed to download gpg key for
repo 'fedora': Curl error (37): Couldn't read a file:// file for
file:///etc/pki
This is the time of the year again and I must say that the situation
improved. The process was:
~~~
$ sudo dnf update fedora-gpg-keys
$ sudo dnf update fedora-repos --release 33
~~~
Where for the second command, you have to confirm the GPG key import.
Please note that the `--release 33
gt; For me it solves any "timing" issues. We often get into a state where we're
>>> trying to upgrade to something that is signed with a key we don't have yet.
>>
>> Yes, but it would also be solved by pushing the F33 key out a few weeks
>> or a mon
elps any. I agree we should push out the f33 keys
>>> before next branching, but why now?
>>>
>>
>> For me it solves any "timing" issues. We often get into a state where we're
>> trying to upgrade to something that is signed with a key we don't h
On 8/23/19 4:12 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>
>
> On 8/22/19 12:58 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> On 8/21/19 9:27 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/19/19 6:59 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 10:50:52 AM CEST Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> Can we *please* send ou
On 8/22/19 12:58 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 8/21/19 9:27 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/19/19 6:59 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 19, 2019 10:50:52 AM CEST Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
>>> wrote:
Can we *please* send out the FN+1 and FN+2 keys a month before branching,
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:39 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 22. 08. 19 v 18:57 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
>
> On 8/21/19 3:24 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>
> That is not completely true. The only possible way is to update the
> `fedora-gpg-keys` first without anything else and t
Dne 22. 08. 19 v 18:57 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
> On 8/21/19 3:24 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>> That is not completely true. The only possible way is to update the
>> `fedora-gpg-keys` first without anything else and that was the reason
>> for [1]. But since [1] did not la
On 8/21/19 9:27 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>
>
> On 8/19/19 6:59 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
>> On Monday, August 19, 2019 10:50:52 AM CEST Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
>> wrote:
>>> Can we *please* send out the FN+1 and FN+2 keys a month before branching,
>>> to *all* releases of Fedora, so we can avoid
On 8/21/19 3:24 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> That is not completely true. The only possible way is to update the
> `fedora-gpg-keys` first without anything else and that was the reason
> for [1]. But since [1] did not landed in Fedora prior the branch, there
> is no way to update Rawh
On 8/21/19 2:50 AM, Petr Mensik wrote:
>
> I think f32 key should NOT be used until this is fully separated and
> compose for older versions exist. Unless that key was leaked somehow,
> there is no hurry, right? That hurry makes pain to many people without
> justification for it,
> I think.
Well,
On 8/19/19 6:59 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> On Monday, August 19, 2019 10:50:52 AM CEST Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>> Can we *please* send out the FN+1 and FN+2 keys a month before branching,
>> to *all* releases of Fedora, so we can avoid this pointless scramble?
>
> What about to have F
here must be first updated GPG keys
>> N, which increases just minor version, not a major one. Major version
>> should be increased only after branching. Unless I am mistaken, rawhide
>> served me 32-0.1 signed by key contained inside. Okay, I had rawhide
>> repo enabled. But
ide repo. I think there must be first updated GPG keys
>> N, which increases just minor version, not a major one. Major version
>> should be increased only after branching. Unless I am mistaken, rawhide
>> served me 32-0.1 signed by key contained inside. Okay, I had rawhide
>> re
Unless I am mistaken, rawhide
> served me 32-0.1 signed by key contained inside. Okay, I had rawhide
> repo enabled. But even
> $ dnf --repo=updates --releasever=31 upgrade fedora-gpg-keys
> did not offer different version. What was worse, both were signed by the
> same F32 key.
yes,
ajor one. Major version
should be increased only after branching. Unless I am mistaken, rawhide
served me 32-0.1 signed by key contained inside. Okay, I had rawhide
repo enabled. But even
$ dnf --repo=updates --releasever=31 upgrade fedora-gpg-keys
did not offer different version. What was
Same issue + bonus... Is necessary to define, F32 packages are mixed with F31
packages, comes broken packages...
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/THLVN2ZPY4XTCTV4CGLIDY6GO2E3YTNP/
___
devel mailing lis
On 8/19/19 3:23 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 10:48 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>
>> So, a few things to note:
>>
>> * fedora-repos was updated for rawhide, however, unfortunately, It had
>> two extra spaces on the first line... " " which made gpg consider it
>> invalid. This is
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 10:48 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> So, a few things to note:
>
> * fedora-repos was updated for rawhide, however, unfortunately, It had
> two extra spaces on the first line... " " which made gpg consider it
> invalid. This is likely the cause of any breakage with rawhide (moc
On Mon, 2019-08-19 at 14:32 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> So, a few things to note:
>
> * fedora-repos was updated for rawhide, however, unfortunately, It had
> two extra spaces on the first line... " " which made gpg consider it
> invalid. This is likely the cause of any breakage with rawhide (moc
So, a few things to note:
* fedora-repos was updated for rawhide, however, unfortunately, It had
two extra spaces on the first line... " " which made gpg consider it
invalid. This is likely the cause of any breakage with rawhide (mock,
containers, copr, etc). This has been fixed in the newest fed
On 8/19/19 1:50 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
This seems to repeat every 6 months: rawhide mock is broken on stable
Fedora
The fedora:rawhide containers are currently broken as well:
$ podman run -it registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora:rawhide
...
# dnf install deltarpm
...
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 01:03:05PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 19. 08. 19 v 10:50 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
> > This seems to repeat every 6 months: rawhide mock is broken on stable
> > Fedora, people are scrambling to install the right gpg keys, dnf reports
> > unsigned package
Dne 19. 08. 19 v 10:50 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
> This seems to repeat every 6 months: rawhide mock is broken on stable
> Fedora, people are scrambling to install the right gpg keys, dnf reports
> unsigned packages.
Not actually true. We did not used to have signed rawhide in past. S
On Monday, August 19, 2019 10:50:52 AM CEST Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Can we *please* send out the FN+1 and FN+2 keys a month before branching,
> to *all* releases of Fedora, so we can avoid this pointless scramble?
What about to have F33 keys right now, when the fresh F31 branch is out
I think that the latest fedora-repos packages are broken (except
Rawhide), because they does not ship with F32 keys. Filled
fedora-release and releng tickets:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1743196
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8652
Vít
Dne 19. 08. 19 v 10:50 Zbigniew Jędrzejew
On 8/19/19 10:50 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
This seems to repeat every 6 months: rawhide mock is broken on stable
Fedora, people are scrambling to install the right gpg keys, dnf reports
unsigned packages.
The same applies to f31.
The f31 repos are not in place, the mock-configs fo
On ma, 19 elo 2019, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
This seems to repeat every 6 months: rawhide mock is broken on stable
Fedora, people are scrambling to install the right gpg keys, dnf reports
unsigned packages.
Looking at https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=fedora-repos,
ther
This seems to repeat every 6 months: rawhide mock is broken on stable
Fedora, people are scrambling to install the right gpg keys, dnf reports
unsigned packages.
Looking at https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=fedora-repos,
there is still no F30 package with the right keys.
Can we *p
On 5/15/19 11:33 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Can someone enlighten me what happened to:
https://getfedora.org/keys/
? There used to be GPG keys of Fedora, but now it just return 404.
This was just brought up on the users list as well. It's being corrected.
Can someone enlighten me what happened to:
https://getfedora.org/keys/
? There used to be GPG keys of Fedora, but now it just return 404.
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
___
devel mailing list -- d
32 matches
Mail list logo
