LM >On Thursday 16 September 2004 19:33, JW wrote: LM >... LM >> Checking GPG signatures... LM >> Unknown LM >> signature /var/cache/apt/archives/apt_0.5.15cnc6-0.suse091.rb.5_i586.rpm: LM >> (SHA1) DSA sha1 md5 (GPG) NOT OK (MISSING KEYS: GPG#8c9b4b0d) LM > egrep -v '^(#|$)' /etc/sources.list I assume you meant /etc/apt/sources.list rpm ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/linux/suse/apt SuSE/9.1-i386 rpmkeys update security base kde gnome xfree86 xorg mozilla suser-rbos suser-gbv usr-local-bin suser-tcousin suser-scorot funktronics packman packman-i686 kernel-of-the-day wine suse-people suse-projects kde3-stable rpm-src ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/linux/suse/apt SuSE/9.1-i386 update-prpm update security-prpm security base kde gnome xfree86 xorg mozilla suser-rbos suser-gbv usr-local-bin suser-tcousin suser-scorot funktronics packman packman-i686 kernel-of-the-day wine suse-people suse-projects kde3-stable (Again, please excuse the word-wrapping - that's only 2 lines in the file) I have changed rpmkey ro rpmkeys, run apt-get update /and/ apt update (it's supposed to be the same thing, right?), installed every rpmkey- rpm that can be found with apt-cache search rpmkey and I'm still having trouble: apt install squirrelmail squirrelmail-plugins Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done The following packages will be upgraded squirrelmail squirrelmail-plugins 2 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 removed and 136 not upgraded. Need to get 0B/4352kB of archives. After unpacking 3292kB of additional disk space will be used. Checking GPG signatures... Unknown signature /var/cache/apt/archives/squirrelmail_1.4.3a-0.gbv.1_noarch.rpm: (SHA1) DSA sha1 md5 (GPG) NOT OK (MISSING KEYS: GPG#b7afc211) Unknown signature /var/cache/apt/archives/squirrelmail-plugins_1.4.3a-0.gbv.2_noarch.rpm: (SHA1) DSA sha1 md5 (GPG) NOT OK (MISSING KEYS: GPG#b7afc211) E: Error(s) while checking package signatures: 0 unsigned package(s) 2 package(s) with unknown signatures 0 package(s) with illegal/corrupted signatures Thanks for your help - any more ideas? -- ---------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Wilson Cedar Creek Software http://www.cedarcreeksoftware.com

On Thursday 16 September 2004 23:13, JW wrote:

LM >On Thursday 16 September 2004 19:33, JW wrote: LM >... LM >> Checking GPG signatures... LM >> Unknown LM >> signature /var/cache/apt/archives/apt_0.5.15cnc6-0.suse091.rb.5_i586.rpm: LM >> (SHA1) DSA sha1 md5 (GPG) NOT OK (MISSING KEYS: GPG#8c9b4b0d)

LM > egrep -v '^(#|$)' /etc/sources.list

I assume you meant /etc/apt/sources.list

Indeed, I suppose my fingers could not keep up with my thoughts ;)

rpm ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/linux/suse/apt SuSE/9.1-i386 rpmkeys update security base kde gnome xfree86 xorg mozilla suser-rbos suser-gbv usr-local-bin suser-tcousin suser-scorot funktronics packman packman-i686 kernel-of-the-day wine suse-people suse-projects kde3-stable rpm-src ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/linux/suse/apt SuSE/9.1-i386 update-prpm update security-prpm security base kde gnome xfree86 xorg mozilla suser-rbos suser-gbv usr-local-bin suser-tcousin suser-scorot funktronics packman packman-i686 kernel-of-the-day wine suse-people suse-projects kde3-stable

(Again, please excuse the word-wrapping - that's only 2 lines in the file)

I know, ;) doesn't matter. But you have every SuSE repository in there you possibly could find, I suppose. Whether that is smart you can read in: http://linux01.gwdg.de/apt4rpm/home.html#hints ATM I only have the following repositories enabled: base update security kde rpmkeys suser-rbos I enable others only when I want to (I have each repository listed on a single line, and commented out).

I have changed rpmkey ro rpmkeys, run apt-get update /and/ apt update (it's supposed to be the same thing, right?),

Yes, 'apt update' would suffice (is shorter ;).

installed every rpmkey- rpm that can be found with apt-cache search rpmkey and I'm still having trouble:

apt install squirrelmail squirrelmail-plugins ... E: Error(s) while checking package signatures: 0 unsigned package(s) 2 package(s) with unknown signatures 0 package(s) with illegal/corrupted signatures

Patrick already posted a solution ('--no-che' is short for '--no-checksig'). Cheers, Leen

Patrick and Lendert: I might not be making myself clear - I am able to install with --nochecksig (and have) I am just wondering what's wrong because it would seem like I'm not _supposed_ to have to install with that option. RB >Op donderdag 16 september 2004 23:13, schreef JW: RB >What's the result of: RB >rpm -q rpmkey-suser-gbv RB >rpm -q gpg-pubkey-b7afc211 RB > RB >ls -l /usr/lib/rpm/gnupg/suser-gbv.asc ccs024:/etc/postfix # rpm -q rpmkey-suser-gbv rpmkey-suser-gbv-0.1-3 ccs024:/etc/postfix # rpm -q gpg-pubkey-b7afc211 package gpg-pubkey-b7afc211 is not installed ccs024:/etc/postfix # ls -l /usr/lib/rpm/gnupg/suser-gbv.asc -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1755 Aug 18 05:22 /usr/lib/rpm/gnupg/suser-gbv.asc RB >You may want to try to install rpmkey-suser-gbv once more RB >apt --no-ch --no-po install rpmkey-suser-gbv RB >and have squirrelmail successfully installed after that... apt --no-ch --no-po install rpmkey-suser-gbv Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done rpmkey-suser-gbv is already the newest version. 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 removed and 135 not upgraded. Thanks. -- ---------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Wilson Cedar Creek Software http://www.cedarcreeksoftware.com

** Reply to message from Patrick Shanahan on Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:07:04 -0500

* JW [09-16-04 17:52]:

...

Patrick and Lendert: I might not be making myself clear - I am able to install with --nochecksig (and have) I am just wondering what's wrong because it would seem like I'm not _supposed_ to have to install with that option.

Edit /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/gpg-checker.conf to look like this: // Make GPG::Check no; to disable gpg checking // It can still be used in combination with --checksig GPG::Check false; Scripts::PM::Pre:: gpg-checker.lua; Ed Harrison SuSE 9.1, Kernel 2.6.7-vanilla PolarBar Mailer 1.25a

Hello, Is the problem still there? . I didn't change anything about my repository rpmkey (gbv) since I released it first time. And just now I revised my 9.1 repository and all packages are signed. I guess it is an old apt version not managing rpmkeys properly. Guillermo El Viernes, 17 de Septiembre de 2004 00:50, JW escribió:

Patrick and Lendert: I might not be making myself clear - I am able to install with --nochecksig (and have) I am just wondering what's wrong because it would seem like I'm not _supposed_ to have to install with that option.

RB >Op donderdag 16 september 2004 23:13, schreef JW: RB >What's the result of: RB >rpm -q rpmkey-suser-gbv RB >rpm -q gpg-pubkey-b7afc211 RB > RB >ls -l /usr/lib/rpm/gnupg/suser-gbv.asc

ccs024:/etc/postfix # rpm -q rpmkey-suser-gbv rpmkey-suser-gbv-0.1-3 ccs024:/etc/postfix # rpm -q gpg-pubkey-b7afc211 package gpg-pubkey-b7afc211 is not installed ccs024:/etc/postfix # ls -l /usr/lib/rpm/gnupg/suser-gbv.asc -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1755 Aug 18 05:22 /usr/lib/rpm/gnupg/suser-gbv.asc

RB >You may want to try to install rpmkey-suser-gbv once more RB >apt --no-ch --no-po install rpmkey-suser-gbv RB >and have squirrelmail successfully installed after that...

apt --no-ch --no-po install rpmkey-suser-gbv Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done rpmkey-suser-gbv is already the newest version. 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 removed and 135 not upgraded.

Thanks.

-- ---------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Wilson Cedar Creek Software http://www.cedarcreeksoftware.com

-- Guillermo Ballester Valor gbv@oxixares.com Ogijares, Granada SPAIN Linux user #117181. See http://counter.li.org/ Public GPG KEY http://www.oxixares.com/~gbv/pubgpg.html