[SOLVED] "signature from <maintainer> is unknown trust."

Archytect · 2011-10-19 12:18:06

Hi all,

since 2 days I cannot upgrade my system for some reason.

I have collected all necessary information (AFAIK) and the error-message under the following link:

Basically, the system won't commit the package upgrade, since there is some kind of authentication error with either the package's checksum or the maintainers GPG signature - I asume.

I tried a "pacman -Sc" in between and removed every unused package and repo, but that didn't seem to work.

Any ideas where to go from here?

BTW: Im really suprised I found little to no information regarding this error, does nobody else seam to have had this issue before???

Thanks for any help in advance.

Greets,
Archytect.

Last edited by Archytect (2011-10-19 13:33:37)

ngoonee · 2011-10-19 12:20:24

Archytect wrote:

Hi all,
since 2 days I cannot upgrade my system for some reason.
I have collected all necessary information (AFAIK) and the error-message under the following link:
http://pastebin.com/jXGJDQgB
Basically, the system won't commit the package upgrade, since there is some kind of authentication error with either the package's checksum or the maintainers GPG signature - I asume.
I tried a "pacman -Sc" in between and removed every unused package and repo, but that didn't seem to work.
Any ideas where to go from here?
BTW: Im really suprised I found little to no information regarding this error, does nobody else seam to have had this issue before???
Thanks for any help in advance.
Greets,
Archytect.

Solution - stop using [testing] if you don't subscribe to [arch-dev-public] or read .pacnew files.

In fact, if you don't read .pacnew files, you're bound to face problems repeatedly whether you use [testing] or not

Archytect · 2011-10-19 12:34:11

ngoonee wrote:

Solution - stop using [testing] if you don't subscribe to [arch-dev-public] or read .pacnew files.
In fact, if you don't read .pacnew files, you're bound to face problems repeatedly whether you use [testing] or not

But I merged my /etc/pacman.conf{,.pacnew} only recently...

So where goes the [arch-dev-public] stanca and how does it look like?

EDIT:

here the diff of /etc/pacman.conf{,.pacnew}:

http://pastebin.com/huZCwbhr

Last edited by Archytect (2011-10-19 12:36:28)

karol · 2011-10-19 12:41:11

Hand-holding may be fine if you can't e.g. configure sound etc. but we're talking about using the [testing] repo, so either you figure it out yourself or quite clearly you're shouldn't be using it.

Archytect · 2011-10-19 12:47:40

karol wrote:

Hand-holding may be fine if you can't e.g. configure sound etc. but we're talking about using the [testing] repo, so either you figure it out yourself or quite clearly you're shouldn't be using it.

Im confused.
So you basically are telling me, because I use [testing], I should not use [testing] instead.
Also I figure, since I seem to be the only guy with this error, that I also must be the only guy using [testing] and everybody else, who don't get this error, doesn't use [testing], right?

MEH.

karol · 2011-10-19 12:51:47

Archytect wrote:

karol wrote:
Hand-holding may be fine if you can't e.g. configure sound etc. but we're talking about using the [testing] repo, so either you figure it out yourself or quite clearly you're shouldn't be using it.
Im confused.
So you basically are telling me, because I use [testing], I should not use [testing] instead.

I don't know why are you using [testing] in the first place and I suggest you stop using it.

Try to learn basic Arch-handling first.

Archytect · 2011-10-19 12:54:54

karol wrote:

Archytect wrote:
karol wrote:
Hand-holding may be fine if you can't e.g. configure sound etc. but we're talking about using the [testing] repo, so either you figure it out yourself or quite clearly you're shouldn't be using it.
Im confused.
So you basically are telling me, because I use [testing], I should not use [testing] instead.
I don't know why are you using [testing] in the first place and I suggest you stop using it.
Try to learn basic Arch-handling first.

Im using Arch for desktop since 2008-05.

wonder · 2011-10-19 12:55:00

damn, karol stop harassing our users!

we want testing to be used therefor stop telling them to disable testing!

solution:

be sure you did pacman-key --init and then set up in pacman.conf

SigLevel = Optional TrustAll

if importing key is slow, change the keyserver from /etc/pacman.d/gnupg/gpg.conf to hkp://pgp.mit.edu

Last edited by wonder (2011-10-19 12:56:16)

.:B:. · 2011-10-19 12:57:14

wonder wrote:

damn, karol stop harassing our users!

He's right about the guy not using [Testing] as he's supposed to - with one eye on the mailing list and another eye on his terminal.

Wittfella · 2011-10-19 13:26:36

I've been using 'Optional TrustAll' and it worked fine for a few days, but now I get 'unknown key' errors or some such and it just stalls, doesn't do anything. I think I recall it asked me just before this 'unknown maintainer, do you want to add key' (or something similar) and I said yes, but now it just errors out and won't do anything.

I've had to resort to 'SigLevel = Never'. I had a look back through pacman.log and realised it only seems to log successful sessions, not the err'ing ones, maybe because it never finishes and I have to ctrl^c out, so I can't find the exact messages...doh

wonder · 2011-10-19 13:29:05

@Wittfella see my second comment about keyserver being slow...

Archytect · 2011-10-19 13:33:12

wonder wrote:

solution:
be sure you did pacman-key --init and then set up in pacman.conf
SigLevel = Optional TrustAll
if importing key is slow, change the keyserver from /etc/pacman.d/gnupg/gpg.conf to hkp://pgp.mit.edu

Thanks, mate. That totally did the job for me right here.

ngoonee · 2011-10-20 01:05:13

Archytect wrote:

wonder wrote:
solution:
be sure you did pacman-key --init and then set up in pacman.conf
SigLevel = Optional TrustAll
if importing key is slow, change the keyserver from /etc/pacman.d/gnupg/gpg.conf to hkp://pgp.mit.edu
Thanks, mate. That totally did the job for me right here.

3 years of using Arch and you didn't look at the differences to see what they meant? Its clearly commented in there about Siglevel after all....

dif · 2011-10-23 14:09:47

To all forum moderators:
"3 years of using Arch and you didn't look at the differences to see what they meant? Its clearly commented in there about Siglevel after all...."
Is this a way to moderate a forum?
To Karol:
"Hand-holding may be fine if you can't e.g. configure sound etc. but we're talking about using the [testing] repo, so either you figure it out yourself or quite clearly you're shouldn't be using it."
Just a usless post, isn't it? Look for falconidity's comments on bloating forums.

Sorry for bloating this forum.
I have to make special apology to ngoonee for taking over his responsibilities. It was only this time. I promise never to do it again.

One more thing... Why don't you set up a special troll forum where you will be able to complain about people asking questions and bloating forums?

karol · 2011-10-23 14:28:17

dif wrote:

To Karol:
"Hand-holding may be fine if you can't e.g. configure sound etc. but we're talking about using the [testing] repo, so either you figure it out yourself or quite clearly you're shouldn't be using it."
Just a usless post, isn't it? Look for falconidity's comments on bloating forums.

Found it -> https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 94#p973194

bernarcher · 2011-10-23 15:56:56

@dif

Sorry, but this is near trolling. Just to remind you of our Forum Etiquette, esp. this section:

Respect The Staff
Members of The Forum Team have been chosen for their ability to exercise consistently good judgment and shall have the final say. Note that this forum is not run as a democracy. The forum staff shall always attempt to implement universally peaceful solutions, but in the end, are charged with the responsibility of maintaining peaceful, civil order for the forum majority. Therefore, they cannot always please everyone with the decisions made. Please do your part to contribute to a healthy community and environment.
If you feel that an egregious oversight has been made, do NOT post complaints in forum threads - they will be quickly closed. Alternatively, use the forum report function, email a member of the moderator group, or email forum@archlinux.org to contact the forum admins.

This is a warning. Next time you will be banned.

Archytect · 2011-10-26 13:06:59

OMG, what have I started...

This makes me really sad.

Everyone treats me like a total Nuub, but it's not my fault that I never ran into a signature-change/conflict before - I just never had to deal with this situation, because I never was in it (before). It just happend from one boot/upgrade to the other (same config, different results). And besides, AFAIK such pgp signature issues (technically) could happen to everyone & every repo - not just [testing].

Also, it's not like I'm using ONE Archlinux installation für 3 years straight, it's several different Archlinux installation. Just wanted to make it clear.

I am a long-term Gentoo (portage) and FreeBSD (ports) user and recently also a Mac user (Macports, similar to FreeBSD ports, but actually a mix of all, pacman[1]+ports[2]+portage[3]) and I work as an AIX (IBM-Unix & System p) specialist for IBM in germany. Not happy at all how some people reacted to my help-request. Even more shocked now, that some moderators even thread some users with bans.

I feel like I asked the nuubished, stupiest, RTFM-question, ever. :-(

1) similar --as-explicit, --as-deps methology included
2) it's FreeBSD ports based
3) has USEFLAG like features

algorythm · 2011-10-28 12:37:06

I don't care about this conversation but you guys should keep in mind for future that you don't need to QUOTE every single post right before yours. People can scroll.

Leonid.I · 2011-10-28 19:52:28

Archytect wrote:

OMG, what have I started...
This makes me really sad.
Everyone treats me like a total Nuub, but it's not my fault that I never ran into a signature-change/conflict before - I just never had to deal with this situation, because I never was in it (before). It just happend from one boot/upgrade to the other (same config, different results). And besides, AFAIK such pgp signature issues (technically) could happen to everyone & every repo - not just [testing].
Also, it's not like I'm using ONE Archlinux installation für 3 years straight, it's several different Archlinux installation. Just wanted to make it clear.
I am a long-term Gentoo (portage) and FreeBSD (ports) user and recently also a Mac user (Macports, similar to FreeBSD ports, but actually a mix of all, pacman[1]+ports[2]+portage[3]) and I work as an AIX (IBM-Unix & System p) specialist for IBM in germany. Not happy at all how some people reacted to my help-request. Even more shocked now, that some moderators even thread some users with bans.
I feel like I asked the nuubished, stupiest, RTFM-question, ever. :-(
1) similar --as-explicit, --as-deps methology included
2) it's FreeBSD ports based
3) has USEFLAG like features

Your question was NOT stupid, feeling insecure, however, is.

davidtavarez · 2011-11-07 15:58:45

I'm having the same problem

karol · 2011-11-07 16:04:10

davidtavarez wrote:

I'm having the same problem

Did you run 'pacman-key --init' and add

SigLevel     = Optional TrustAll

to your /etc/pacman.conf?

Last edited by karol (2011-11-07 16:13:52)

tomk · 2011-11-07 16:07:31

Archytect, davidtavarez - why are you using the testing repo?

jesuschrist · 2012-04-15 14:44:24

I don't see the 'solution' on this thread. I, a newbie, came to this thread because of signature issues on my first upgrade after installation, which SigLevel did not (entirely) solve. For posterity: I had to force sync the filesystem, remove locale.sh, pacman-key init, replace pacman.conf with pacman.conf.pacnew (with SigLevel = Never), pacman -Syu, and set SigLevel back to TrustAll. I think it would be nice, indeed simple, to hint at these known issues in the Beginner Installation Guide.

/dev/zero · 2012-04-15 19:43:14

jesuschrist wrote:

I think it would be nice, indeed simple, to hint at these known issues in the Beginner Installation Guide.

I trust you've already updated the wiki, then?

jesuschrist · 2012-04-16 12:39:00

Considered it, but then I wouldn't presume to know exactly which of my dozen first-day hacks was 'the right' thing. Perhaps this is not the right thread as mine were primarily first installation issues - but did include signature errors. I was not using '[testing]', but as I understand from above, that might not be relevant - this impacts everyone. As for signatures, I believe the significant wins were:

* pacman-key init
* something about SigLevel = Never (found magically in /etc/pacman.conf.pacnew)
* red herring: SigLevel = Optional TrustAll is not enough

Additionally for new installation, I believe the following were necessary:

* pacman -S filesystem --force
* rm /etc/profile.d/locale.sh
* red herring: ignore suggestions about upgrading pacman

I'll leave these notes for an expert with one+ day of experience to decide if it's all correct and worthy of the wiki:

# pacman-key --init

# pacman -Sf, -Sc, etc pacman
error: signature from "Dave Reisner.... is unknown trust
... no packages were upgraded

# echo "SigLevel = Optional TrustAll" >> /etc/pacman.conf

# pacman -Sf pacman
error... signature... Dave... unknown trust

# pacman -Syu
... Replace module-init-tools with core/kmod? Uh, OK
[ more signature errors ]

# mv /etc/pacman.conf /etc/pacman.conf.pacprev

# mv /etc/pacman.conf.pacnew /etc/pacman.conf

# pacman -Syu
...
error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files)
filesystem: /etc/mtab exists in filesystem
initscripts: /etc/profile.d/locale.sh exists in filesystem
Errors occurred, no packages were upgraded.

# pacman -S filesystem --force

# pacman -Syu
(replace module-init-tools with core/kmod) Y
error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files)
initscripts: /etc/profile.d/locale.sh exists in filesystem
Errors occurred, no packages were upgraded.

# rm /etc/profile.d/locale.sh

# pacman -Syu
.../93) upgrading...

Last edited by jesuschrist (2012-04-16 12:55:00)

Arch Linux

#1 2011-10-19 12:18:06

[SOLVED] "signature from <maintainer> is unknown trust."

#2 2011-10-19 12:20:24

Re: [SOLVED] "signature from <maintainer> is unknown trust."

#3 2011-10-19 12:34:11

Re: [SOLVED] "signature from <maintainer> is unknown trust."

#4 2011-10-19 12:41:11

Re: [SOLVED] "signature from <maintainer> is unknown trust."

#5 2011-10-19 12:47:40

Re: [SOLVED] "signature from <maintainer> is unknown trust."

#6 2011-10-19 12:51:47

Re: [SOLVED] "signature from <maintainer> is unknown trust."

#7 2011-10-19 12:54:54

Re: [SOLVED] "signature from <maintainer> is unknown trust."

#8 2011-10-19 12:55:00

Re: [SOLVED] "signature from <maintainer> is unknown trust."

#9 2011-10-19 12:57:14

Re: [SOLVED] "signature from <maintainer> is unknown trust."

#10 2011-10-19 13:26:36

Re: [SOLVED] "signature from <maintainer> is unknown trust."

#11 2011-10-19 13:29:05

Re: [SOLVED] "signature from <maintainer> is unknown trust."

#12 2011-10-19 13:33:12

Re: [SOLVED] "signature from <maintainer> is unknown trust."

#13 2011-10-20 01:05:13

Re: [SOLVED] "signature from <maintainer> is unknown trust."

#14 2011-10-23 14:09:47

Re: [SOLVED] "signature from <maintainer> is unknown trust."

#15 2011-10-23 14:28:17

Re: [SOLVED] "signature from <maintainer> is unknown trust."

#16 2011-10-23 15:56:56

Re: [SOLVED] "signature from <maintainer> is unknown trust."

#17 2011-10-26 13:06:59

Re: [SOLVED] "signature from <maintainer> is unknown trust."

#18 2011-10-28 12:37:06

Re: [SOLVED] "signature from <maintainer> is unknown trust."

#19 2011-10-28 19:52:28

Re: [SOLVED] "signature from <maintainer> is unknown trust."

#20 2011-11-07 15:58:45

Re: [SOLVED] "signature from <maintainer> is unknown trust."

#21 2011-11-07 16:04:10

Re: [SOLVED] "signature from <maintainer> is unknown trust."

#22 2011-11-07 16:07:31

Re: [SOLVED] "signature from <maintainer> is unknown trust."

#23 2012-04-15 14:44:24

Re: [SOLVED] "signature from <maintainer> is unknown trust."

#24 2012-04-15 19:43:14

Re: [SOLVED] "signature from <maintainer> is unknown trust."

#25 2012-04-16 12:39:00

Re: [SOLVED] "signature from <maintainer> is unknown trust."

Board footer