[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: etch/volatile -- public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY EC61E0B0BBE55AB3

On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 21:48 +0200, Joe Hart wrote:
> Greg Folkert wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 19:50 +0200, Joe Hart wrote:
> >> Rick Thomas wrote:
> >>> On Apr 14, 2007, at 6:39 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 11:21:56PM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote:
> >>>>> Anybody know what the problem is here?  Or how to fix it?
> >>>>> W: GPG error: http://volatile.debian.org etch/volatile Release: The
> >>>>> following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is
> >>>>> not available: NO_PUBKEY EC61E0B0BBE55AB3
> >>>>> W: You may want to run apt-get update to correct these problems
> >>>> You need to import the public key for volatile.debian.org separately
> >>>> using
> >>>> apt-key if you want to use this repo with secure apt, the key is not
> >>>> included in the default debian-archive-keyring package.
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Two questions:
> >>>
> >>> 1) How do I import the public key for volatile?  (If it's in the fine
> >>> manual, then please point me to it so I can RTFM)
> >>>
> >>> 2) What's the reasoning behind not including it in the default
> >>> debian-archive-keyring package?  Is it not recommended that everyone use
> >>> volatile for the things like security and spam updates that it provides?
> >> 1) Rick, read the message Kushal Kumaran sent to you.  It tells you.
> >>
> >> 2) That is a good question.  I have no idea.  Oversight perhaps?  I am
> >> sure if it wasn't there is a good reason for it, but I have no idea what
> >> it could be.
> > 
> > Let me ask you this Joe.
> > 
> > Would you have the key for Debian-Multimedia in the "Debian Archive
> > Keyring"?
> No, but I might make it a little easier for Debian newbies to find it in
> the first place.  Something like a simple script that people could use
> to install the missing multimedia applications/codecs that almost
> everyone wants.  Those who don't want them of course wouldn't need or
> want to use such a script, but having one available and make it plain
> that it was available would stop a lot of people bitching about Debian
> not coming with them in the first place.

So, you are suggesting we include a non-Debian, but Debian associated
repository. This would infer approval and endorsement. Nope, don't see
it happening.

> Somehow I think this issue has been beaten to death already, but it was
> before my time.  I understand the legal issues involved, but they don't
> apply where I live, at least not yet.

Yep, along with the whole formerly needed nonus stuff.

> > Being a Debian associated, but not really an Official Debian repository.
> > The same goes for volatile. Until they become FULL ON FRIENDSHIP Debian
> > repositories, I don't think it'll get into the "debian-archive-keyring"
> Point well taken.  I agree with (YOU) on this one.  I said I didn't know why,
> now I do.  Personally I don't use that repo, so I don't know that much
> about it.  Thank you for informing me.

I'd be more inclined to use Christian's Repository than the other ones
out there, that aim at the same niche. 
greg, greg@gregfolkert.net

Novell's Directory Services is a competitive product to Microsoft's
Active Directory in much the same way that the Saturn V is a competitive
product to those dinky little model rockets that kids light off down at
the playfield. -- Thane Walkup

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: