Description of problem: Various tools and APIs provide alternatively "rawhide" or a number. To make it easier to handle the keys isn /etc/pki/rpm-gpg, having "rawhide" ones in addition to the release-numbered ones would help (eg. DNF and Anaconda). Steps to Reproduce: ls -1 /etc/pki/rpm-gpg | grep RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora | grep raw Actual results: No output Expected results: Something along the lines of RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-34-primary RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-34-x86_64 ...
I would like to join here to explain reasoning. We want to finally fix issue that Anaconda is not importing gpg keys after installation. We had a discussion with DNF to find the best solution and both our teams agreed that name of the gpg key on Rawhide is the problem which is right now hacked on the DNF side. Basically it's hard to follow numbering of Rawhide and also plenty of sources will just tell you it's Rawhide without information about the number. Because of that, we had idea to make a proper solution which we expect not to be that problematic on your side and make ours life a lot easier. Just to create symlink to *-rawhide-* during the RPM transaction. That would make both ways working, if it is *-34-* or *-rawhide-*. We already have PR which would benefit from this new behavior https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/2855 If this new symlink will be in place we would be able to use DNF API to make substitutions for us and don't bother with the $releasever $arch in the path. Is this proposed solution feasible for you, or are there problems we did not see right now?
Can you look at: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7445 ? I think that would solve your problem, but I am not sure... but thats what we have been working toward and should try and make a final push on.
Based on the Kamils proposed patch, yes it should be what we are looking for: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7445#comment-602009
This package has changed maintainer in Fedora. Reassigning to the new maintainer of this component.