Guest alphaomega Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 (edited) ...just looking for some clarification (information) about the problems I had installing the latest security update (150). using the GUI...I was able to install the latest update...but I had problems with the libqt3-3... and qt3-common... I kept getting an error about a bad signature. the md5sum...checked out okay. so as a newbie, I was totally confused. I googled and found messages about downloading the update again...in case it was a bad download...and messages about uninstalling the existing version and then installing the update...but when I attempted that...it wanted to also uninstall quite a few applications. not wanting to go through all that...I googled some more. then I came acroos a post recommending using: rpm -Uvh to install the update. so I did...and it appears to have installed successfully. so what exactly am I missing or not quite understanding? thanks in advance for any information... cheers... totally confused (as usual) [moved from Everything Linux by spinynorman - welcome aboard :)] Edited December 20, 2004 by alphaomega Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdion81 Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 I beleive the missing signature message would have been due to you not having the servers pgp key installed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JuhaHT Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 I don't think so. If it is, so what is the pgp-key? That's because the other packages (kdebase, libkdebase, libkdecore) were okay, but following packages mandrakelinux-kde-config-file-10.1-6.1.100mdk.noarch.rpm libqt3-3.2.3-19.5.100mdk.i586.rpm libqt3-devel-3.2.3-19.5.100mdk.i586.rpm libqt3-mysql-3.2.3-19.5.100mdk.i586.rpm libqt3-odbc-3.2.3-19.5.100mdk.i586.rpm libqt3-psql-3.2.3-19.5.100mdk.i586.rpm qt3-common-3.2.3-19.5.100mdk.i586.rpm qt3-example-3.2.3-19.5.100mdk.i586.rpm have wrong signature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JuhaHT Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 Sorry. Those packages were signed with contrib pubkey. I think it's mistake, they should be signed with update pubkey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padma Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 If you know you got the RPM from an official mirror, you can probably feel reasonably safe about going ahead with installing it (like you did). My understanding (and I am sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) is that invalid signature errors can be remedied by updating your urpmi sources before downloading any updates. I think the command line is "urpmi.update"? (I usually just go to MCC and click the "Update Souorces" button. ;) ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alphaomega Posted December 19, 2004 Report Share Posted December 19, 2004 (edited) Thanks everyone for all the information... I think I got it... Doing: rpm -Kvv qt3-common-3.2.3-19.5.100mdk.i586.rpm I was able to determine that it was signed with the cooker public key. After I added a cooker mirror site to media sources... I got the correct public key and was therefore able to verify the signature on the two rpm's in question. At least that is the way i'm understanding it. Correct me if I am wrong. Again... Edited December 19, 2004 by alphaomega Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.