Bug 162302 - fonts-arabic has wrong GPG key
Summary: fonts-arabic has wrong GPG key
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 167902
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: fonts-arabic
Version: 4
Hardware: i386
OS: Linux
medium
high
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Caolan McNamara
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
: 162301 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2005-07-02 03:13 UTC by Florin Andrei
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2005-10-31 20:07:40 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Florin Andrei 2005-07-02 03:13:58 UTC 
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050524 Fedora/1.0.4-4 Firefox/1.0.4

Description of problem:
yum install fonts-arabic fonts-bengali fonts-chinese fonts-gujarati fonts-hindi fonts-japanese fonts-korean fonts-punjabi fonts-tamil fonts-xorg-cyrillic fonts-xorg-syriac fonts-xorg-truetype
[...]
warning: rpmts_HdrFromFdno: Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID db42a60e
public key not available for fonts-arabic-1.5-3.noarch.rpm
Retrieving GPG key from file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora

The GPG key at file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora (0x4F2A6FD2)
is already installed but is not the correct key for this package.
Check that this is the correct key for the "Fedora Core 4 - i386 - Base" repository.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
fonts-arabic-1.5-3

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.see above
2.
3.
  

Actual Results:  fails GPG key verification

Expected Results:  should pass verification

Additional info:
Comment 1 Florin Andrei 2005-10-07 18:42:22 UTC 
Three months have passed, no reply, bug still occurs.
Comment 2 Caolan McNamara 2005-10-28 12:47:41 UTC 
caolanm->notting: is there a quick way to verify that these are ok in the FC-4
repo ?
Comment 3 Caolan McNamara 2005-10-28 12:56:48 UTC 
*** Bug 162301 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 4 Bill Nottingham 2005-10-31 20:07:40 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 167902 ***
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.