missing keys on yum update -- evolution-data-server

Joel Rees joel_rees at sannet.ne.jp
Mon Jun 12 12:30:19 UTC 2006


>>>> Want to ping the list on this (copied by hand because I yummed  
>>>> from a virtual console instead of X11):
>>>> -----------------------
>>>> warning: rpmts_HdrFromFdno: Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key  
>>>> ID 4f2a6fd2
>>>> Public key for evolution-data-server-1.6.2-1.fc5.1.i386.rpm is  
>>>> not installed
>>>> Retrieving GPG key from file :///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora
>>>> Importing GPG key 0x4F2A6FD2 "Fedora Project <fedora at redhat.com>"
>>>> ------------------------
>>>> I found the key and fingerprint at
>>>>     http://fedora.redhat.com/About/security/
>>>> after some indirect searching and checked that the fingerprint  
>>>> and random pieces of the encoded key match.
>>>
>>> What's the issue here?
>> Well, I had to drag my Mac Mini over next to the AMD box so I  
>> could look at the ID and the public key referenced and then look  
>> them up to check that I was letting the installer add a valid key.  
>> No big deal really, just thinking that perhaps that particular key  
>> should have already been in yum's pre-imported keys.
>>> The key wasn't already present in your rpm database (have you  
>>> never done "yum update" on this system before?)
>> Fresh install. evolution-data-server was
                         ***
>> something like 170th of 320 packages being updated in the first  
>> sweep.
                         ***
>> Missing a pre-imported key, same-old same-old, and I'm sure that  
>> when I get my hands free to go look it up on bugzilla, there'll  
>> already be a bug or two for it, just wondering if it had caused  
>> any noise on this list yet. Besides, missing keys are not  
>> something one should keep hush-hush.
>>> , so yum imported the repo GPG key from the file already on your  
>>> system from the initial install (/etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY- 
>>> fedora) as it is configured to do by the repo file /etc/ 
>>> yum.repos.d/fedora-updates.repo. It then used the key to verify  
>>> that the downloaded evolution-data-server package was intact and  
>>> actually an official Fedora package.
>> Yeah. That's what it's supposed to do when the key is not present.
>> It just seems a little strange that RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora was missing  
>> from yum's collection of pre-imported keys. (That and I was really  
>> tired at five this morning when yum complained, so having to take  
>> the three minutes to drag the Mini over felt a little bit like an  
>> inconvenience, GOL. I've got to get some sleep tonight.)
>
> Yum, or rather rpm, has no pre-imported keys at all.

That's a surprise. (Or maybe not?)

> Every one of them is installed as a resutt of some post- 
> installation action, such as running a "yum update". The keys are  
> supplied out-of-the-box in the fedora-release package, but they're  
> not pre-imported into the rpm database.

Well, I'm pretty sure that evolution-data-server was not the first  
downloaded, not the first untarred, not the first installed, and not  
the first tested. Did the ones that got installed first have no keys  
at all?

> It's possible that, for whatever reason, the evolution-data-server  
> package was the first one yum tried to check the GPG signature of  
> when you did the update, since all of the updates packages should  
> be signed by that key.

I hear what you're saying, I'm having a hard time matching it to my  
memory of the install.

Is it possible that other packages were using the public keys  
directly out of /etc/pki rather than expecting them to be in RPM/ 
yum's private keystore?

Otherwise, I'd expect to have been prompted to confirm key imports at  
least three other times during the first update, based on what was  
being updated.

(I'm trying to remember what my first updates in FC3 and FC4 were  
llike. I do remember hitting exactly one of those confirmation and  
just hitting yes without checking when I installed FC4 on a box at  
work once. The boss was giving me the evil eye because the install  
was taking, in his opinion, too long already, so I just trusted it.)




More information about the fedora-list mailing list