Re: F38 proposal: Strong crypto settings: phase 3, forewarning 2/2 (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On Thu, 2022-09-15 at 22:42 +0300, Otto Liljalaakso wrote:
> Tommy Nguyen kirjoitti 15.9.2022 klo 17.40:
> > 
> > > On Sep 15, 2022, at 10:26 AM, Otto Liljalaakso
> > > <otto.liljalaakso@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > So maybe it is just that, for Fedora 36 at least, RPM Fusion it
> > > not compatible with the new crypto settings.
> > > 
> > > I also see the following key ids in the errors I reported in the
> > > original message. How can I check what those are, more RPM Fusion
> > > keys?
> > > 
> > > 6dc1be18
> > > d651ff2e
> > > 94843c65
> > 
> > A while back I reported the issue and someone said that it has to
> > do with their sub key. Not much that can be done except report it
> > to rpmfusion (unless it’s already been done).
> 
> I tried searching bugzilla.rpmfusion.org, but could not find anything
> that looks relevant. I also wanted to search the mailing lists, but 
> apparently, at the moment, RPM Fusion is not publicly archiving its 
> mailing lists [1].
> 
> [1]: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4759#c5
> 
> Anyhow, I did some more research. It looks like RPM Fusion has
> switched 
> signing packages with SHA256, but in their repository for Fedora 36, 
> there are older builds around that still use SHA1. At least the SHA1 
> ones that I found are older than the SHA256 ones.
> 
> RPM Fusion Fedora 37 repository seems to be all SHA256 already.
> 
> So, it looks like there is nothing to fix here, except maybe adding
> some 
> note to testing instructions.
> 
> > In order to identify the rest of the keys, try:
> > 
> > rpm -qa gpg-pubkey\*
> > rpm -qi gpg-pubkey-keyid-goeshere
> 
> Thanks, they are all from RPM Fusion.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

I found this: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6410#c1

Again, not a very friendly response. The short is that they are
currently in freeze so no action can be taken ATM.
_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux