View Issue Details
ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0001263 | bareos-core | installer / packages | public | 2020-07-14 11:55 | 2023-11-27 10:21 |
Reporter | siegmarb | Assigned To | arogge | ||
Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | always |
Status | closed | Resolution | fixed | ||
Platform | Linux | OS | Ubuntu | OS Version | 16.04 |
Product Version | 18.2.9 | ||||
Summary | 0001263: please provide gpg repo key in v4 format | ||||
Description | current repo key is Release.key: PGP public key block Public-Key (old) so Debian/Ubuntu reports: The key(s) in the keyring /etc/apt/trusted.gpg.d/..... are ignored as the file has an unsupported filetype. please provide the key in new format, so it can just be dropped on Debian/Ubuntu systems in /etc/apt/trusted.gpg.d Howto do: Import key once locally: gpg --import Release.key export again: gpg --output bareos.gpg --export 118283D9A7862CEE file hwraid.gpg bareos.gpg: GPG key public ring, created Tue Jan 15 14:47:51 2019 Upload to ftp/http. thank you :) | ||||
Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
Sounds reasonable. I'll have to add that to the automated repository generation process, so it might not be as easy as you think, but I'll see what I can do. |
|
right now, we're creating the Release.key with "--export --armor --output Release.key", so I guess you just need the key without the ASCII-armor. I can add another export using "--export --output Release.gpg", but I wonder how we should name the file. Release.gpg doesn't really cut it, as context is lost when you drop it into /etc/apt/trusted.gpg.d/ Then we could probably do bareos.gpg, however, during upgrade or testing you may want to have multiple gpg keys installed at once (i.e. for the current version and the version you're upgrading to). Does it make sense to have files like "bareos-<keyid>.gpg"? Or should we just provide a bareos.gpg that contains all our keys (I don't think that is a great idea, because you would trust older keys, too)? Any thoughts on this? |
|
In the meantime we overhauled repository setup and now provide a script that does it. Does your original issue still exist with the current repositories, or did we already fix your problem? |
|
As there was no feedback, I guess this problem doesn't exist with the newer repository format anymore. | |
Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
---|---|---|---|
2020-07-14 11:55 | siegmarb | New Issue | |
2020-08-04 09:52 | arogge | Assigned To | => arogge |
2020-08-04 09:52 | arogge | Status | new => acknowledged |
2020-08-04 09:52 | arogge | Note Added: 0004029 | |
2020-12-16 15:36 | arogge | Note Added: 0004070 | |
2020-12-16 15:36 | arogge | Status | acknowledged => feedback |
2023-10-24 09:21 | arogge | Note Added: 0005474 | |
2023-11-27 10:21 | arogge | Status | feedback => resolved |
2023-11-27 10:21 | arogge | Resolution | open => fixed |
2023-11-27 10:21 | arogge | Note Added: 0005531 | |
2023-11-27 10:21 | arogge | Status | resolved => closed |