Finally, I followed your recommendation, and it appears that all the packages providing errors are intel (2018) packages.
>
> Samuel Sieb wrote:
> > On 10/25/23 13:35, Patrick Dupre via users wrote:
> >> rpm -qi $(rpm -qa | grep pubkey)
> >> error: rpmdbNextIterator: skipping h# 132
> >> Header RSA signature: BAD (header tag 268: invalid OpenPGP signature: Parsing an OpenPGP packet:
> >> Failed to parse Signature Packet
> >> because: Signature appears to be created by a non-conformant OpenPGP implementation, see <https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2351>.
> >> because: Malformed MPI: leading bit is not set: expected bit 8 to be set in 101000 (28))
> >> Header SHA1 digest: OK
> >> error: rpmdbNextIterator: skipping h# 134
> >> Header RSA signature: BAD (header tag 268: invalid OpenPGP signature: Parsing an OpenPGP packet:
> >> Failed to parse Signature Packet
> >> because: Signature appears to be created by a non-conformant OpenPGP implementation, see <https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2351>.
> >> because: Malformed MPI: leading bit is not set: expected bit 8 to be set in 1111100 (7c))
> >> Header SHA1 digest: OK
> >> error: rpmdbNextIterator: skipping h# 137
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> How can I associate the pubkeys with the package?
> >
> > They aren't part of a package. They are independent data items. I'm not
> > sure if it's a pubkey or a package.
> >
> >> Should I rebuild the rpm databasis?
> >
> > That won't do anything. The database is fine, it's the signature of
> > something in it that isn't.
> >
> > Try running "rpm -qa --nosignature | grep pubkey" and see if that runs
> > without the error. That option isn't documented for querying, so I don't
> > know if it will have any effect.
>
> There is some guidance for how to handle this in Common
> Issues:
>
> https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/third-party-rpms-with-an-invalid-signing-key-might-cause-errors-during-package-operations/80077
>
> As a brief example (I'd recommend reading the article in
> full):
>
> $ rpm -q --nosignature --querybynumber 132
>
> should report the first affected package. Repeat for the
> other numbers in the errors and then remove the packages via
>
> $ sudo rpm -e --nosignature <packages>
>
> --
> Todd
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>
>
> Samuel Sieb wrote:
> > On 10/25/23 13:35, Patrick Dupre via users wrote:
> >> rpm -qi $(rpm -qa | grep pubkey)
> >> error: rpmdbNextIterator: skipping h# 132
> >> Header RSA signature: BAD (header tag 268: invalid OpenPGP signature: Parsing an OpenPGP packet:
> >> Failed to parse Signature Packet
> >> because: Signature appears to be created by a non-conformant OpenPGP implementation, see <https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2351>.
> >> because: Malformed MPI: leading bit is not set: expected bit 8 to be set in 101000 (28))
> >> Header SHA1 digest: OK
> >> error: rpmdbNextIterator: skipping h# 134
> >> Header RSA signature: BAD (header tag 268: invalid OpenPGP signature: Parsing an OpenPGP packet:
> >> Failed to parse Signature Packet
> >> because: Signature appears to be created by a non-conformant OpenPGP implementation, see <https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2351>.
> >> because: Malformed MPI: leading bit is not set: expected bit 8 to be set in 1111100 (7c))
> >> Header SHA1 digest: OK
> >> error: rpmdbNextIterator: skipping h# 137
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> How can I associate the pubkeys with the package?
> >
> > They aren't part of a package. They are independent data items. I'm not
> > sure if it's a pubkey or a package.
> >
> >> Should I rebuild the rpm databasis?
> >
> > That won't do anything. The database is fine, it's the signature of
> > something in it that isn't.
> >
> > Try running "rpm -qa --nosignature | grep pubkey" and see if that runs
> > without the error. That option isn't documented for querying, so I don't
> > know if it will have any effect.
>
> There is some guidance for how to handle this in Common
> Issues:
>
> https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/third-party-rpms-with-an-invalid-signing-key-might-cause-errors-during-package-operations/80077
>
> As a brief example (I'd recommend reading the article in
> full):
>
> $ rpm -q --nosignature --querybynumber 132
>
> should report the first affected package. Repeat for the
> other numbers in the errors and then remove the packages via
>
> $ sudo rpm -e --nosignature <packages>
>
> --
> Todd
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>
_______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
