another RHL9 kernel patch.

Panu Matilainen pmatilai at welho.com
Sat Jun 19 13:43:52 UTC 2004


On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 19:09, Jon Peatfield wrote:
> I'm part way through QA'ing the kernel-2.4.20-33.9.legacy.src.rpm on a
> RH9 box (well I'm doing an rpmbuild on it atm).
> 
> However I can't find a way to get it to pass the --checksig checks.
> I'm clearly doing something wrong but I can't see it.
> 
> rpm --checksig -v kernel-2.4.20-33.9.legacy.src.rpm
> kernel-2.4.20-33.9.legacy.src.rpm:
>     Header SHA1 digest: OK (78fb849eb14b27ebf6e2cd1c60860a0db1b88e7c)
>     MD5 digest: OK (4cc45153c0860aed29640e2df3dff349)
>     V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 5178e2a5
> 
> shows the package is signed by the unknown keyid 5178e2a5, which
> http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x5178e2a5&op=index says is
> "Dominic Hargreaves" key (which seems right).  If I download the
> public key from:
> 
> http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x5178E2A5
> 
> and rpm --import it I get:
> 
> rpm -qi gpg-pubkey
> <snip>
> 
> Name        : gpg-pubkey                   Relocations: (not relocateable)
> Version     : 243a1329                          Vendor: (none)
> Release     : 3f2be04f                      Build Date: Fri Jun 18 17:01:26 2004
> Install Date: Fri Jun 18 17:01:26 2004      Build Host: localhost
> Group       : Public Keys                   Source RPM: (none)
> Size        : 0                                License: pubkey
> Signature   : (none)
> Summary     : gpg(Dominic Hargreaves <dominic.hargreaves at magd.ox.ac.uk>)
> Description :
> -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
> Version: rpm-4.2 (beecrypt-2.2.0)
> 
> mQGiBDhC5hoRBADyhJEb4DkUavard0thxSDCOBO1Trf9Ev5MboIpb1ZrNTqICEvtjb29hbaJ
> 5qexUQ2S+Z+tz/A94U2EuX9ijCiW012CQQvXY6mKryQHd6sPkTLolFO0cAQjahVHhjNHurB1
> 8UmkbqApY6NioukuR45n6bS4/gbAT3+IFa1i4IHqnwCg/9uabGJ2Iuegw7Jg5q2Vvq+ThS0E
> <snip>
> 
> and the --checksig -v *still* shows that keyid 5178e2a5 is unknown.
> 
> What am I doing wrong?  Should I get the public key some other way?

Bitten by https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90952,
nothing wrong in what you do.

	- Panu -





More information about the fedora-legacy-list mailing list