Bug 439728

Summary: can't install third party repo packages
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Rahul Sundaram <sundaram>
Component: gnome-packagekitAssignee: Robin Norwood <robin.norwood>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: rawhideCC: richard, smohan
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-04-18 12:10:16 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
traceback while installing a release package
none
better traceback
none
livna traceback for preinstalled package none

Description Rahul Sundaram 2008-03-31 00:56:13 UTC 
Description of problem:

Go to http://rpm.livna.org and try to install the Fedora 8 livna package. 
  
Actual results:

Attached screenshot showing traceback.

Expected results:

Should just work. Find a way to import gpg keys. 

Additional info:
Comment 1 Rahul Sundaram 2008-03-31 00:56:13 UTC 
Created attachment 299652 [details]
traceback while installing a release package
Comment 2 Rahul Sundaram 2008-03-31 00:58:49 UTC 
Created attachment 299653 [details]
better traceback
Comment 3 Richard Hughes 2008-04-01 00:19:25 UTC 
Does this still happen using my git snapshot packages?
Comment 4 Rahul Sundaram 2008-04-01 00:36:05 UTC 
First time, i got a traceback. Screenshot attached. I removed the package and
tried again. It worked. As a side note, I saw "Trying transaction" in the UI.
Comment 5 Rahul Sundaram 2008-04-01 00:37:10 UTC 
Created attachment 299798 [details]
livna traceback for preinstalled package
Comment 6 Richard Hughes 2008-04-10 18:41:54 UTC 
Does this still happen with my git snapshots of today? Thanks.
Comment 7 Rahul Sundaram 2008-04-10 21:22:17 UTC 
seems to work better in my preliminary testing.
Comment 8 Richard Hughes 2008-04-18 12:10:16 UTC 
Okay, thanks.