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 cached packages by executing 'dnf clean packages'. >>> Error: GPG check FAILED >> >> Oh, I see I mis-read the error message. The package isn't signed. >> >> My flash-plugin package is >> >> flash-plugin-29.0.0.113-release.x86_64 >> >> while you're trying to install >> >> flash-plugin-29.0.0.113-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm >> >> Where did you get that package? It seems not from the Adobe repo. > > Thanks Ed, I had no idea about the command you suggested to search for the > keys. > The flash-plugin package I have installed is 28.0.0.161-Release: 1.fc27 and > this > one and the one the update is trying to install are from the Negativo17 Flash > repository. The adobe repository has the version of flash you have installed, > so > I'll try and install that if dnfdragora/yumex offer it, otherwise I'll and > figure > out how to get dnf to install that specific version. I'll also get in contact > with > the Negativo17 flash repository maintainer and see if I can get the signing > issue > rectified. I thought I had keys from that repository installed when I added > it, but > your command is indicating differently. > >
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. IMHO, since the flash-plugin is available directly from Adobe and their repo it makes little sense to get it from Negativo17. I can't see how they would add value. -- Conjecture is just a conclusion based on incomplete information. It isn't a fact.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
