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
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.
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 to get dnf to install all the updates
without it attempting to put on the negativo17 flash update.
I wasn't explicitly using the version of flash from negativo17, it was
an incidental process. Originally I was only using negativo17's steam,
handbrake and nvidia repositories, until they recommended replacing
their nvidia repository with their multimedia repository. A little while
ago I was getting a conflict between the xorg nvidia packages I had
installed and their nvidia package for xorg, and while I was
investigating how to resolve that (which I finished up resolving by
removing all the xorg nvidia packages) I found they had a .repo file
that contained definitions for all of their repositories, so, rather
than having multiple .repo files for their repositories I replaced them
with the single .repo file. As a result of this, having resolved the
nvidia packages conflict, I issued the dnf upgrade and it immediately
upgraded the Adobe flash I had installed at the time to the version that
was in the negativo17 flash repository.
regards,
Steve
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
