Bug 442648 - bad error message for untrusted package
bad error message for untrusted package
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: PackageKit (Show other bugs)
All Linux
low Severity low
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Robin Norwood
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2008-04-15 21:19 EDT by Matthias Clasen
Modified: 2008-08-02 19:40 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2008-06-07 21:34:54 EDT
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 Matthias Clasen 2008-04-15 21:19:25 EDT
Trying to install an untrusted package from a repo with gpgcheck=1 yields a good
error message explaining the situation.

Trying to update an untrusted package gives an unspecific internal error.
Comment 1 Richard Hughes 2008-04-17 04:21:52 EDT
Oooh, can you attach the backtrace pls. Thanks.
Comment 2 Matthias Clasen 2008-04-17 09:39:36 EDT
Not sure I know what you are asking for here. backtrace from the backend ?
Comment 3 Richard Hughes 2008-04-18 06:59:37 EDT
Yes, with the internal error we should also get the backtrace. The backend
should never backtrace on us, and so if it does it's a bug. Thanks.
Comment 4 Matthias Clasen 2008-04-21 23:20:55 EDT
no backtrace, here is the exact message I see:

Unknown error

Error in Package Signatures
Public key for djbfft-0.76-6.lvn6.i386.rpm is not installed

So I guess it would be enough te get rid of the "Unknown error"
and make "Error in Package Signatures" the primary text.
Comment 5 Richard Hughes 2008-04-22 07:13:36 EDT
Ahh, gotcha. I've fixed this in master. I'll port back to stable today.
Comment 6 Richard Hughes 2008-05-06 05:47:27 EDT
Fixed (enough?) for F9?
Comment 7 Bug Zapper 2008-05-14 05:30:55 EDT
Changing version to '9' as part of upcoming Fedora 9 GA.
More information and reason for this action is here:
Comment 8 Brennan Ashton 2008-06-07 21:34:54 EDT
Since there are insufficient details provided in this report for us to
investigate the issue further, and we have not received feedback to the
information we have requested above, we will assume the problem was not
reproducible, or has been fixed in one of the updates we have released for the
reporter's distribution.

Users who have experienced this problem are encouraged to upgrade to the latest
update of their distribution, and if this issue turns out to still be
reproducible in the latest update, please reopen this bug with additional


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.