Bug 162302 - fonts-arabic has wrong GPG key
fonts-arabic has wrong GPG key
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 167902
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: fonts-arabic (Show other bugs)
i386 Linux
medium Severity high
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Caolan McNamara
: 162301 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2005-07-01 23:13 EDT by Florin Andrei
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:11 EST (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2005-10-31 15:07:40 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Florin Andrei 2005-07-01 23:13:58 EDT
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):

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1.see above

Actual Results:  fails GPG key verification

Expected Results:  should pass verification

Additional info:
Comment 1 Florin Andrei 2005-10-07 14:42:22 EDT
Three months have passed, no reply, bug still occurs.
Comment 2 Caolan McNamara 2005-10-28 08:47:41 EDT
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 08:56:48 EDT
*** Bug 162301 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 4 Bill Nottingham 2005-10-31 15:07:40 EST

*** 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.