[CALUG] Checksum error -- WAS: modest linux camera: feedback

[Walt Smith]

thanks,

I know there wasn't any corruption, although I initially 
suspected it.  But rpm would have told me so.

All the packages in this case are in the Fedora 12 release DVD.
(gnome).
The install was local and if I spec to yum:
it accepted options 
-C  --reposomethng=fedora-DVD

( sorry, I'm typing from another box/memory ) where all the DVD
files were copied to the hard disk, and I edited the 
/etc/yum/repos.conf file ( again, not exactly a quote).  
I have used other repos such as livna in the past.  but they have their
own dot config and I assume their own sig.  

I also recall ( but not much) reading about some Fedora problem
with some sig, but as long as my pkges installed, I'm not interested
in researching it.  OTOH, I may need to install another 50 meg
set of 20 packages in the future... !!!!! as I recall, there is some
file that contains the proper sig.  Thought I had it ... unless I 
D/L some later file with a different checkysum.


By the way, on the off-chance the "Jeilin driver" was in the kernel, 
I tried rebooting both the original F12 release, and a later F12 kernel.
(but not the latest)
Of course, this wouldn't change the camera catalog selection... which
raises an interesting Q: digiKam needed some kde dependencies and
gthumb obviously is a gnome pkg.  Who/Where/what
made ( and upkeeps) the camera "catalog" ??  

Walt.......



--- On Mon, 8/30/10, Bryan J Smith <b.j.smith at ieee.org> wrote:

> From: Bryan J Smith <b.j.smith at ieee.org>
> Subject: Checksum error -- WAS: modest linux camera: feedback
> To: waltechmail at yahoo.com
> Cc: "calug at unknownlamer.org" <calug at unknownlamer.org>
> Date: Monday, August 30, 2010, 4:32 PM
> On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 09:40 -0700,
> Walt Smith wrote:
> > The digiKam install wasn't the smoothest.
> > On Fedora-12, I used a local yum install ( rpm files
> on hard disk),
> 
> I assume you mean "yum localinstall" which installs a local
> RPM, but
> resolves any dependencies from YUM repositories.
> 
> > and got some checksum error on one file. I could
> manually install
> > "the file" using rpm -Uvh blah, and following up with
> another yum,
> > got another checksum error on a different file.
> 
> Correct, because you're attempting to install RPMs that
> have been signed
> with a GPG key you don't trust.  The solution is to
> locate the GPG key
> that the packages were signed with, and import that into
> RPM.
> 
> It's a matter of trust, not corruption.
> 
> If they weren't signed with a GPG key, then you have to
> disable the
> signature option.  By default, YUM will _not_ let you
> install any
> packages that haven't been signed with a trusted GPG key.
> 
> > Eventually all 8 needed files were installed using
> only rpm.  After
> > the install, digiKam runs fine.
> 
> Correct, because there wasn't any corruption, only a trust
> issue.
> 
> -- Bryan
> 
> P.S.  Any reason you didn't just install DigiKam from
> Fedora itself?
>   http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=1593 
> 
> Where did you get the DigiKam RPMs from?
> 
> -- 
> Bryan J Smith <b.j.smith at ieee.org>
> 
>