On 11/27/25 12:46 AM, Stephen Morris wrote:
Why isn't the upstream provider signing their rpms? If they are, you
need to import their key.
The software supply does have a key for their repository which I have
imported with rpmkey but it makes no difference to the issue, the dnf
install/reinstall still fails with a nodigest error.
I can reproduce the issue.
# rpmkeys --list
cc7d2edf4808effa0e00fc723413da98aa3e7f5e SoftMaker repository (GPG key
for signing files) <[email protected]> public key
c6e7f081cf80e13146676e88829b606631645531 Fedora (43)
<[email protected]> public key
# rpm --checksig vim-enhanced-9.1.1914-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
vim-enhanced-9.1.1914-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm: digests signatures OK
# rpm --checksig softmaker-office-nx-1228.x86_64.rpm
softmaker-office-nx-1228.x86_64.rpm: DIGESTS signatures NOT OK
The weird thing is that the softmaker rpm appears to be signed twice
with the same key.
# rpm -qip vim-enhanced-9.1.1914-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
Signature :
RSA/SHA256, Fri 14 Nov 2025 10:25:40 AM UTC, Key ID
829b606631645531
# rpm -qip softmaker-office-nx-1228.x86_64.rpm
Signature :
RSA/SHA256, Sat 06 Sep 2025 05:00:35 AM UTC, Key ID
3413da98aa3e7f5e
RSA/SHA256, Sat 06 Sep 2025 05:00:34 AM UTC, Key ID
3413da98aa3e7f5e
That might cause a problem.
--
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
