On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 7:54 PM, kendell clark <coffeekingms@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
>
> On 1/28/2016 6:49 PM, Francis Gerund wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Doug Newgard <scimmia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:57:05 -0500
>>> Francis Gerund <ranrund@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Should this be reported as a bug (or 2-3 bugs)?
>>>>
>>> No, it's not a bug. Info about this has been all over the mailing lists,
>>> forums, and IRC for days. Do some checking around.
>>>
>>>
>> I'm sort of new to Arch. I just installed yesterday, so didn't know about
>> that. I did not see a bug report (maybe I missed it).
>>
>> And I thought that even if it is flagged as out-of-date, it would still
>> install.
>>
>> I thought it was a reasonable question to ask (with some detail provided),
>> and I was tring to be helpful.
>>
>> I don't know the etiquette here yet. Sorry.
>>
>> And Gnucash is really important to me.
>>
>> I will try checking the email archives.
>>
>> At Arch, is IRC preferred over mailing lists as a source of information?
>>
>> IRC is much harder for em to use effectively; it's like trying to dring
>> from a fire hose.
>>
>
>
> This seems reasonable to me. Even if a package is flagged out of date, it
> will still download and install successfully, unless there's a problem with
> it's gpg signature. If that's the case, pacman will fail with a sometimes
> cryptic error. If you want, I can try building a package from current
> stable gnucash source and upload it somewhere where you can fetch until
> arch updates it's package.
> Thanks
> Kendell clark
>
Kendall,
Thanks for your reply.
After checking the mailing list archives, I found a similar problem was
with the "courage" package, which was solved by (as root):
pacman-key --refresh-keys
I tried that, and it *seems* to have worked. I downloaded
Gnucash 2.6.10-1, and it *appears* to be okay.
So, don't go to the trouble of building a package.
But thanks for offering. I appreciate it!
