On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:34:35 -0800 Rick Stevens <ricks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > That's an issue, but what was scary to me was that the RPM was > referencing a file or symlink that did NOT have the Fedora version > in it--just "fedora-x86_64" rather than "fedora-23-x86_64". Something > like a kernel that doesn't specify the version is a BAD thing (IMHO). > > In other words, I don't think this is a dnf issue, but rather an RPM > packaging error (at least in these two cases). Well, packages have no concept of this. It's the repo files that tell dnf where to look for the keys for all packages in that repo: Look at: /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora.repo (In the os you are upgrading from). Most likely the fedora 21 install was using a old fedora-repos package that didn't have the version in the key lines. This was fixed in https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15683 but that was only an update 3 months ago, so you could have missed updating to it. kevin
Attachment:
pgp7PRVSd_czX.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
