On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 06:51:24PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Dne 25. 08. 20 v 16:25 Petr Menšík napsal(a): > > No, unfortunately the key is there, but the package is incomplete. > > > > If you have enabled gpg signatures verification, it would fail. At least > > it does to me. > > > > Check it with: > > > > rpm -ql fedora-gpg-keys | grep fedora-34-$(arch) > > > > It just does not provide correct key. > > > Actually, yesterday I did update of another system with my approach and > you are right that the fedora-gpg-keys-33-0.9 did not contained the > proper links to the key. However, the fedora-gpg-keys-33-0.10 works just > fine (not really sure what caused the difference). I did precisely: the 0.9 one was broken. Incorrect. Had a bug. Mistaken. Not right. Not represenative of how the process is supposed to work. The 0.10 one was fixed and should behave as you note, and work to upgrade to rawhide without disabling any gpg key. Sorry this time it wasn't correct. Mistakes happen. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
