Am Do, den 03.03.2005 schrieb Jim Popovitch um 21:12: > > Sorry, this is nonsense. the GPG keyring has nothing to do with the GPG > > keys in the RPM DB. > > LOL!. > > -Jim P. Sorry Jim if my words sounded a bit harsh. I really apologise. But if you look at "Beartooth's" signature you see that he is running Fedora Core 1. And I remember him from the Fedora User list as being and not very experienced user. So if you confuse him directing into the gpg binary usage, that does not help him. He simply does not know anything about the GPG signing, I fear (reading his initial posting and reply). I think he is a Fedora Core 1 user and found out lately that security updates are coming from the Fedora Legacy Project for his release. And as these packages have a different GPG sign than those from Red Hat, he now does not know how to install the update packages from FLP. He may correct me if I am wrong. If he did read http://www.fedoralegacy.org/about/security.php at least he didn't understand it. Again sorry, Jim. I didn't count with those really old RH 7.3 installations some people still seem to run. This was clearly my fault. But your advise to "Beartooth" didn't deal in any way with the more modern FC1. Peace? :) Alexander -- Alexander Dalloz | Enger, Germany | GPG http://pgp.mit.edu 0xB366A773 legal statement: http://www.uni-x.org/legal.html Fedora Core 2 GNU/Linux on Athlon with kernel 2.6.10-1.14_FC2smp Serendipity 21:48:47 up 10 days, 8:57, load average: 0.44, 0.69, 0.77
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
-- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
