On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 21:48 +0200, Joe Hart wrote: > Greg Folkert wrote: > > On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 19:50 +0200, Joe Hart wrote: > >> Rick Thomas wrote: > >>> On Apr 14, 2007, at 6:39 AM, Steve Langasek wrote: > >>>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 11:21:56PM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote: > >>>>> Anybody know what the problem is here? Or how to fix it? > >>>>> W: GPG error: http://volatile.debian.org etch/volatile Release: The > >>>>> following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is > >>>>> not available: NO_PUBKEY EC61E0B0BBE55AB3 > >>>>> W: You may want to run apt-get update to correct these problems > >>>> You need to import the public key for volatile.debian.org separately > >>>> using > >>>> apt-key if you want to use this repo with secure apt, the key is not > >>>> included in the default debian-archive-keyring package. > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Two questions: > >>> > >>> 1) How do I import the public key for volatile? (If it's in the fine > >>> manual, then please point me to it so I can RTFM) > >>> > >>> 2) What's the reasoning behind not including it in the default > >>> debian-archive-keyring package? Is it not recommended that everyone use > >>> volatile for the things like security and spam updates that it provides? > >> 1) Rick, read the message Kushal Kumaran sent to you. It tells you. > >> > >> 2) That is a good question. I have no idea. Oversight perhaps? I am > >> sure if it wasn't there is a good reason for it, but I have no idea what > >> it could be. > > > > Let me ask you this Joe. > > > > Would you have the key for Debian-Multimedia in the "Debian Archive > > Keyring"? > > No, but I might make it a little easier for Debian newbies to find it in > the first place. Something like a simple script that people could use > to install the missing multimedia applications/codecs that almost > everyone wants. Those who don't want them of course wouldn't need or > want to use such a script, but having one available and make it plain > that it was available would stop a lot of people bitching about Debian > not coming with them in the first place.
So, you are suggesting we include a non-Debian, but Debian associated repository. This would infer approval and endorsement. Nope, don't see it happening. > Somehow I think this issue has been beaten to death already, but it was > before my time. I understand the legal issues involved, but they don't > apply where I live, at least not yet. Yep, along with the whole formerly needed nonus stuff. > > Being a Debian associated, but not really an Official Debian repository. > > The same goes for volatile. Until they become FULL ON FRIENDSHIP Debian > > repositories, I don't think it'll get into the "debian-archive-keyring" > > Point well taken. I agree with (YOU) on this one. I said I didn't know why, > now I do. Personally I don't use that repo, so I don't know that much > about it. Thank you for informing me. I'd be more inclined to use Christian's Repository than the other ones out there, that aim at the same niche. -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Novell's Directory Services is a competitive product to Microsoft's Active Directory in much the same way that the Saturn V is a competitive product to those dinky little model rockets that kids light off down at the playfield. -- Thane Walkup
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
