On 18/3/18 2:49 pm, Todd Zullinger wrote:
Ed Greshko wrote:
Well, you very well may have the keys for Negativo17 but
it is just that whoever is the maintainer missed signing
the RPM as the error states.
FWIW, the maintainer at negativo17.org said this error has
been corrected (in the comment se
On 03/18/18 11:57, Stephen Morris wrote:
> You are right, I wasn't looking at it from that perspective, I was
> approaching it
> from the perspective of dnf being able to decide which was the best package
> to use
> if there were multiples providing the same functionality. I may have to
> disabl
On 18/3/18 12:02 pm, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 03/18/18 08:41, Stephen Morris wrote:
When I used dnfdragora to remove the 28.0.0 version from negativo17 and install
the
29.0.0 version from Adobe's repository, it told me the Adobe version was a
downgrade from the installed version, which I didn't und
Ed Greshko wrote:
> Well, you very well may have the keys for Negativo17 but
> it is just that whoever is the maintainer missed signing
> the RPM as the error states.
FWIW, the maintainer at negativo17.org said this error has
been corrected (in the comment section at the URL below).
> IMHO, since
On 03/18/18 08:41, Stephen Morris wrote:
> When I used dnfdragora to remove the 28.0.0 version from negativo17 and
> install the
> 29.0.0 version from Adobe's repository, it told me the Adobe version was a
> downgrade from the installed version, which I didn't understand. I have now
> managed
> t
On 18/3/18 1:06 am, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 03/17/18 21:51, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 17/3/18 9:44 pm, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 03/17/18 18:26, Ed Greshko wrote:
Package flash-plugin-29.0.0.113-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm is not signed
The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next successful
trans
On 03/17/18 21:51, Stephen Morris wrote:
> On 17/3/18 9:44 pm, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> On 03/17/18 18:26, Ed Greshko wrote:
>>> Package flash-plugin-29.0.0.113-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm is not signed
>>> The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next successful
>>> transaction.
>>> You can remove
On 17/3/18 9:44 pm, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 03/17/18 18:26, Ed Greshko wrote:
Package flash-plugin-29.0.0.113-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm is not signed
The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next successful
transaction.
You can remove cached packages by executing 'dnf clean packages'.
Error:
Hi, I think from Russian Fedora.
Kind regards
-Ursprüngliche Mitteilung-
Von: Ed Greshko
An: users
Verschickt: Sa, 17. Mrz 2018 11:44
Betreff: Re: dnf Upgrade Produces GPG Error
On 03/17/18 18:26, Ed Greshko wrote:
> Package flash-plugin-29.0.0.113-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm is
On 03/17/18 18:26, Ed Greshko wrote:
> Package flash-plugin-29.0.0.113-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm is not signed
> The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next successful
> transaction.
> You can remove cached packages by executing 'dnf clean packages'.
> Error: GPG check FAILED
Oh, I see I
On 03/17/18 18:04, Stephen Morris wrote:
>
> I've just attempted to do a sudo dnf upgrade to install the 343 updates
> that
> are available, and after downloading all the packages it got a GPG error and
> terminated. Has anyone else seen this and is able to provide some guidance on
> what
> I
Hi,
I've just attempted to do a sudo dnf upgrade to install the 343
updates that are available, and after downloading all the packages it
got a GPG error and terminated. Has anyone else seen this and is able to
provide some guidance on what I need to look at to identify why?
[SKIPPED] vu
12 matches
Mail list logo
