On Thursday, April 21, 2011 07:56:27 AM John Hodrien wrote:
> If people think that disabling gpg checking is a good idea, you risk this
> finding its way into their yum.conf. That's exactly what you've seen amongst
> some spacewalk users.
FWIW, there are some out there who don't even think unsign
Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 04/21/2011 08:34 AM, Mathieu Baudier wrote:
>>> Not updating is entirely sensible and sounds like the best default
>>> position.
>>> Installing a package you'd expect to be signed when it isn't signed
>>> should ring alarm bells.
>>
>> I agree that my first answer was prob
On 04/21/2011 08:34 AM, Mathieu Baudier wrote:
>> Not updating is entirely sensible and sounds like the best default position.
>> Installing a package you'd expect to be signed when it isn't signed should
>> ring alarm bells.
>
> I agree that my first answer was probably wrong, even with all
> dis
> Not updating is entirely sensible and sounds like the best default position.
> Installing a package you'd expect to be signed when it isn't signed should
> ring alarm bells.
I agree that my first answer was probably wrong, even with all
disclaimers and warnings.
I thought of a technical way (--
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> yes, a package was released, unsigned, and has been fixed. ( and 4 more
> tests added to the release process to make sure that this does not
> happen again; or atleast reduce the chance of this going out ).
And if people stick with the sane practice of
On 04/21/2011 12:26 PM, Mathieu Baudier wrote:
> Sorry, but not everybody is on production machines.
Security and integrity of an install is not optional, wherever you might
be. Imho anyway.
> Maybe he was just told: "install quickly this CentOS in VirtualBox,
> just to make sure our app is comp
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Mathieu Baudier wrote:
> Sorry, but not everybody is on production machines.
>
> Since the OP could not analyze himself the error message, one could
> safely assume he is not dealing with critical production environments.
> Maybe he was just told: "install quickly this CentOS
>>> Other workarounds for this particular issue have just been suggested here:
>>> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-April/110547.html
>>> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-April/110551.html
>
> I find it strange that people are making such recommendations. A non
> verifyabl
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 04/21/2011 09:26 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>> Other workarounds for this particular issue have just been suggested here:
>>> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-April/110547.html
>>> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-April/11055
On 04/21/2011 12:49 AM, Ben McGinnes wrote:
> 2) Run: yum update --nogpgcheck
please dont do that :(
- KB
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 04/21/2011 09:26 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> Other workarounds for this particular issue have just been suggested here:
>> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-April/110547.html
>> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-April/110551.html
I find it strange that people are making
On 04/21/2011 01:04 AM, Mathieu Baudier wrote:
>>> 'yum update' runs into the following error message.
>>>
>>> Package libuser-devel-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.i386.rpm is not signed
>>
>> I got this too, there's two ways around it:
>>
>> 1) Wait until the package is signed and then update.
>>
>> 2) Run: y
>> 'yum update' runs into the following error message.
>>
>> Package libuser-devel-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.i386.rpm is not signed
>
> I got this too, there's two ways around it:
>
> 1) Wait until the package is signed and then update.
>
> 2) Run: yum update --nogpgcheck
Other workarounds for this parti
On 21/04/11 5:26 AM, Olaf Mueller wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 'yum update' runs into the following error message.
>
> Package libuser-devel-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.i386.rpm is not signed
I got this too, there's two ways around it:
1) Wait until the package is signed and then update.
2) Run: yum update --no
Hello,
'yum update' runs into the following error message.
Package libuser-devel-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.i386.rpm is not signed
regards
Olaf
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
15 matches
Mail list logo