LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 02-28-2017, 10:36 AM   #1
denydias
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 54

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Question Slackpkg+ fatal errors with Ponce and SlackOnly repos


In the last weeks I'm experiencing some fatal errors when running slackpkg update. Of course, this happens only with slackpkg+ plugin for third party repositories.

The errors are:

Code:
failed: Connection refused.
failed: Network is unreachable.

                        !!! F A T A L !!!
    Repository 'slackonly' FAILS the CHECKSUMS.md5 download
    The repository may be invalid and will be SKIPPED.
The one above is for SlackOnly. This repository seems to be down as the whole slackonly.com domain fails to reply.

Code:
2017-02-28 13:21:15 URL:http://ponce.cc/slackware/slackware-current/packages/CHECKSUMS.md5.asc [801/801] -> "/dev/shm/slackpkg.7WPTJN/CHECKSUMS.md5-ponce.asc" [1]

                        !!! F A T A L !!!
    Repository 'ponce' FAILS the CHECKSUMS.md5 signature check
    The file may be corrupted or the gpg key may be not valid.
    Remember to import keys by launching 'slackpkg update gpg'.
This one looks like someone have forgotten to update GPG-KEY or signatures file. When I try to update key #36287643 (Matteo Bernardini, aka Ponce) with slackpkg update gpg, it says the key is unchanged. So I suspect it is the second case.

Is anybody out there experiencing the same with those repositories? Does anyone know what happened to these repos?
 
Old 02-28-2017, 10:49 AM   #2
notKlaatu
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2010
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Distribution: Slackware, Fedora
Posts: 967

Rep: Reputation: 611Reputation: 611Reputation: 611Reputation: 611Reputation: 611Reputation: 611
I just tried with the slackonly repository and yes, I get the same error.
 
Old 04-16-2017, 12:42 PM   #3
denydias
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 54

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
It has been almost two months past from the OP and Ponce repo update still fails with:

Code:
                        !!! F A T A L !!!
    Repository 'ponce' FAILS the CHECKSUMS.md5 signature check
    The file may be corrupted or the gpg key may be not valid.
    Remember to import keys by launching 'slackpkg update gpg'.
Is this just me? Is no one out there facing this apparently outdated GPG keys from Ponce repo? The current GPG key is:

Code:
pub   2048R/ED123FBC 2011-01-01
uid       [ unknown] Matteo Rossini <zerouno@slacky.it>
sub   2048R/2B41569A 2011-01-01
BTW, SlackOnly -current repo is in good shape now.
 
Old 04-16-2017, 08:21 PM   #4
willysr
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2004
Location: Jogja, Indonesia
Distribution: Slackware-Current
Posts: 3,521

Rep: Reputation: 890Reputation: 890Reputation: 890Reputation: 890Reputation: 890Reputation: 890Reputation: 890
Ponce's binary repository is not intended to be used with slackpkg+
it's just a collection of binary packages he provided without any metadata used by slackpkg+

please see the supported repositories
 
Old 04-16-2017, 08:58 PM   #5
denydias
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 54

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by willysr View Post
Ponce's binary repository is not intended to be used with slackpkg+
Yup! I'm aware of that. Thank you anyway for the reminder.

Now I realize my OP wasn't clear enough. Ponce's repo once worked fine with Slackpkg+, with no GPG key error of any sort. Since the OP it's not working that way anymore, as it looks that Ponce is not updating the signatures file anymore as he used to.

I posted this here in the hope that 1) Ponce himself could see that or 2) if anyone reading this could warn him of this minor issue.

I do not expect Slacpkg+ to support Ponce's repo. What I do expect is that Ponce could make it possible to me/us (the user/users) a package file integrity verification before install it.

Last edited by denydias; 04-16-2017 at 09:00 PM. Reason: Typo.
 
Old 04-16-2017, 11:20 PM   #6
MadMaverick9
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2010
Location: Here
Distribution: Slackware 14.0
Posts: 244
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Code:
bash $ wget -q "http://ponce.cc/slackware/slackware-current/packages/CHECKSUMS.md5" "http://ponce.cc/slackware/slackware-current/packages/CHECKSUMS.md5.asc"                                                                                  
bash $ gpg --verify CHECKSUMS.md5.asc 
gpg: assuming signed data in `CHECKSUMS.md5'
gpg: Signature made 2017-04-11T13:59:34 ICT using RSA key ID 02BEF947
gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
bash $
Code:
https://pgp.mit.edu/
https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=0x02BEF947&op=index
https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x938817FE02BEF947
 
Old 04-16-2017, 11:21 PM   #7
ponce
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Location: Pisa, Italy
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 3,566

Rep: Reputation: 1673Reputation: 1673Reputation: 1673Reputation: 1673Reputation: 1673Reputation: 1673Reputation: 1673Reputation: 1673Reputation: 1673Reputation: 1673Reputation: 1673
hi deny,

the last key you show it's not mine: the GPG-KEY present in the 32bit repo (the 64bit is ok) is actually an old one that got there when I reinstalled the vm where I build packages, it will be fixed soon, thanks.
Code:
$ gpg  --with-fingerprint GPG-KEY                                                                                             
pub  2048R/36287643 2010-03-11 Matteo Bernardini (Ponce) <matteo.bernardini@sns.it>
      Key fingerprint = 925F 980D A4A2 CF1B 3623  982A 1156 1A10 3628 7643
sub  2048R/D1D970E5 2010-03-11
the right one is this
Code:
$ gpg  --with-fingerprint GPG-KEY
pub  4096R/02BEF947 2010-11-28 Matteo Bernardini (ponce) <matteo.bernardini@gmail.com>
      Key fingerprint = 578D EC98 F19F FC00 D9B7  F0BC 9388 17FE 02BE F947
sub  4096R/8DF5B035 2010-11-28
sorry if I hadn't answered this before but when I read the title I ignored the topic on purpose: like Willy told you, I don't support using the repository with slackpkg+ (especially if mixed with other repositories), not because it lacks metadatas (actually they're there, generated with Alien Bob's gen_repos_files.sh), but because I don't want anybody bothering me with mini-installs and such complaining that they lack dependencies (I understand now this is not the case).
I don't have time to support the repositories, those are just the packages I use on my installations and they're given away with no warranties.

Last edited by ponce; 04-16-2017 at 11:25 PM.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 04-17-2017, 02:24 AM   #8
denydias
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 54

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by ponce View Post
the GPG-KEY present in the 32bit repo (the 64bit is ok) is actually an old one
Aha! That was it! Thank you very much, @ponce!

I apologize on confusing you with another one, but you were wight right as I had your old key in place (2048R/36287643). Now that I updated it properly (4096R/02BEF947), all runs fine again.

Just so you know, your old key is still listed at hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net, but the new one is not.

Last edited by denydias; 04-17-2017 at 02:27 AM. Reason: Add new key info.
 
  


Reply

Tags
repositories, slackpkg+, slackware


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[SOLVED] How To setup sbotools.conf for ponce's -current repository and slackpkg+ config. bamunds Slackware 4 09-24-2016 10:45 PM
[SOLVED] slackpkg+: how to keep one package in slackware being upgraded by a 3rd party repos? michaelslack Slackware 9 12-15-2014 06:28 AM
[SOLVED] Can slackpkg+ work on 32bit and 64bit repos at the same time samac Slackware 18 11-19-2013 08:27 AM
Fedora 10 error - yum repos file contains parsing errors... what to do? Bruce Jamieson Linux - Newbie 3 02-05-2009 02:21 PM
FEDORA 9 REPOS strange gui errors ???? DOTT.EVARISTI Fedora 1 05-31-2008 02:24 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:12 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration