Re: samba: untrusted packages ???

[Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>]

helices <helices@helices.org> writes:

> * Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> [2006:06:04:08:22:41+0200] scribed:
>> helices <helices@helices.org> writes:
>> 
>> > What do you think?
>> 
>> I think you need to read more. Google a bit and read what errors and
>> warnings you get from commands.
>
> Since I updated yesterday, and attempted the samba install, the
> repository went from this:
>
>     # apt-cache policy samba
>     samba:
>       Installed: (none)
>       Candidate: 3.0.22-1
>       Version table:
>          3.0.22-1 0
>             500 ftp://mirrors.kernel.org unstable/main Packages
>          3.0.14a-3 0
>             100 ftp://debian.csail.mit.edu sarge/main Packages
>             100 ftp://ftp.at.debian.org sarge/main Packages
>             100 ftp://mirror.espri.arizona.edu sarge/main Packages
>
> To this:
>
>     # apt-cache policy samba samba-common samba-doc
>     samba:
>       Installed: 3.0.22-1
>       Candidate: 3.0.22-1
>       Version table:
>      *** 3.0.22-1 0
>             700 ftp://mirrors.kernel.org etch/main Packages
>             700 ftp://mirrors.kernel.org testing/main Packages

Those two are the same, testing is a link to etch. Having samba in
etch makes 0 difference for the trust/untrust issue though.

>             500 ftp://mirrors.kernel.org unstable/main Packages
>             100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
>          3.0.14a-3 0
>             100 ftp://debian.csail.mit.edu sarge/main Packages
>             100 ftp://ftp.at.debian.org sarge/main Packages
>             100 ftp://mirror.espri.arizona.edu sarge/main Packages

Better don't mix sarge and etch. That can confuse apt.

> Now, of course, the installation went without a hitch; and samba is
> installed and functioning.
>
>
> However, back to my original problem: what caused the original error?
>
>     untrusted versions of the following packages will be installed
>
> Yes, I googled; and I found several indications of issues with gpg key.
> So, is this really an apt-key issue, again?
>
> How can this be?  I have been installing from mirrors.kernel.org for a
> long time; and onto this new amd64 box for at least one week.

Maybe the previous apt-get update call just fetched a broken
Release.gpg file and thus failed to authenticate the mirror. Believe
it or not, that happens far too often. Now, after the next mirror
pulse has corrected the problem, you got a working one and the problem
disapeared.

MfG
        Goswin