Varnish 2.1.4 rpm's - bad key error when installing on Centos 5.5 x86

[Glen Kelly]

Hi Bob

Yes I noticed yesterday that issue 810 (http://www.varnish-cache.org/trac/ticket/810) had been closed and was going to trying installing 2.1.4 on our test server today.

Thank you for providing confirmation that the rpm's are now okay.

Regards Glen

From: Bob Camp [mailto:lists at rtty.us]
Sent: Friday, 19 November 2010 8:42 AM
To: Glen Kelly
Cc: varnish-misc at varnish-cache.org
Subject: RE: Varnish 2.1.4 rpm's - bad key error when installing on Centos 5.5 x86

Hi

The issue with CentOS / yum / rpm / keys seems to have been fixed. Varnish now installs fine via Yum.

Bob

________________________________
From: Glen Kelly [mailto:Glen.Kelly at fire.tas.gov.au]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 8:29 PM
To: Bob Camp
Cc: varnish-misc at varnish-cache.org
Subject: RE: Varnish 2.1.4 rpm's - bad key error when installing on Centos 5.5 x86

Hi Bob

Ah, I understand now.

I assumed the * in Ruslan's example was just for me to change and insert the relevant filename, I see now he actually meant it as a literal '*'. Oops.

That is interesting to know the rpm can resolve interlinking dependencies like that, an upgrade will be considerably faster if I don't need to uninstall, reinstall and then reconfigure.

Thank you for the clarification.

Regards Glen

From: Bob Camp [mailto:lists at rtty.us]
Sent: Friday, 5 November 2010 11:18 AM
To: Glen Kelly
Cc: varnish-misc at varnish-cache.org
Subject: Re: Varnish 2.1.4 rpm's - bad key error when installing on Centos 5.5 x86

Hi

If you have both of the files present you can do a rpm --nosignature -Uvh varnish*

That will get rid of the failed dependency issue.

Bob

On Nov 4, 2010, at 7:21 PM, Glen Kelly wrote:

Hi Ruslan

That sort of worked, I had to use the -nosignature flag instead. Also because of dependencies it would not let me upgrade, I had to uninstall and reinstall.

But big negative is that it breaks the rpm -q option. Until these rpm's are fixed I cannot use them in production. I assume the developers read this mailing list but in case they don't how do I go about raising a bug report?

(root at bolrpdev1:/tmp)# rpm --nosignature -Uvh varnish-libs-2.1.4-1.el5.x86_64.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
        varnish-libs = 2.1.3-1.el5 is needed by (installed) varnish-2.1.3-1.el5.x86_64

(root at bolrpdev1:/tmp)# rpm --nosignature -Uvh varnish-2.1.4-1.el5.x86_64.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
        varnish-libs = 2.1.4-1.el5 is needed by varnish-2.1.4-1.el5.x86_64

 (root at bolrpdev1:/tmp)# rpm -qa | grep varn
varnish-libs-2.1.3-1.el5
varnish-2.1.3-1.el5

(root at bolrpdev1:/tmp)# rpm -e varnish-2.1.3-1.el5
warning: /etc/varnish/default.vcl saved as /etc/varnish/default.vcl.rpmsave
warning: /etc/sysconfig/varnish saved as /etc/sysconfig/varnish.rpmsave
warning: /etc/logrotate.d/varnish saved as /etc/logrotate.d/varnish.rpmsave

(root at bolrpdev1:/tmp)# rpm -e varnish-libs-2.1.3-1.el5

(root at bolrpdev1:/tmp)# rpm --nosignature -i varnish-libs-2.1.4-1.el5.x86_64.rpm

(root at bolrpdev1:/tmp)# rpm --nosignature -i varnish-2.1.4-1.el5.x86_64.rpm

(root at bolrpdev1:/tmp)# rpm -qa | grep varn
error: rpmdbNextIterator: skipping h#     395 Header V4 RSA/SHA256 signature: BAD, key ID c4deffeb
error: rpmdbNextIterator: skipping h#     394 Header V4 RSA/SHA256 signature: BAD, key ID c4deffeb

(root at bolrpdev1:/tmp)# service varnish start
Starting varnish HTTP accelerator:                         [  OK  ]

(root at bolrpdev1:/tmp)# service varnishlog start
Starting varnish logging daemon:                           [  OK  ]

(root at bolrpdev1:/tmp)# varnishd -V
varnishd (varnish-2.1.4 SVN 5447M)
Copyright (c) 2006-2009 Linpro AS / Verdens Gang AS

Regards Glen

<tasfire_wakeup_small4cad.jpg><http://www.fire.tas.gov.au/mysite/Show?pageId=colDayLightSavings>

P Do you need to print this? Consider the environment, prevent paper waste.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
The information in this transmission may be confidential and/or protected by legal professional privilege, and is intended only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed. If you are not such a person, you are warned that any disclosure, copying or dissemination of the information is unauthorised. If you have received the transmission in error, please immediately contact this office by telephone, fax or email, to inform us of the error and to enable arrangements to be made for the destruction of the transmission, or its return at our cost. No liability is accepted for any unauthorised use of the information contained in this transmission.


From: Ruslan Sivak [mailto:russ at vshift.com]
Sent: Friday, 5 November 2010 12:47 AM
To: Glen Kelly
Subject: Re: Varnish 2.1.4 rpm's - bad key error when installing on Centos 5.5 x86


The workaround is to download the 2 rpms manually and run

rpm --signature -Uvh varnish*

I hope whoever is generating the rpms fixes this soon as well as generates some x32 rpms.

Is this possibly the wrong list to ask for this?  Should it be on the  dev list, or should I file an issue in the bug tracker?

Russ
On Nov 4, 2010 1:42 AM, "Glen Kelly" <Glen.Kelly at fire.tas.gov.au<mailto:Glen.Kelly at fire.tas.gov.au>> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I am receiving the same errors as described here when installing on Centos 5.5 x86.
>
> error: rpmts_HdrFromFdno: Header V4 RSA/SHA256 signature: BAD, key ID c4deffeb
>
> Is there a known solution?
>
> Also will the 2.1.4 rpm's be eventually available from http://sourceforge.net/projects/varnish/files/?
>
> Regards Glen
>
<tasfire_wakeup_small4cad.jpg>_______________________________________________
varnish-misc mailing list
varnish-misc at varnish-cache.org<mailto:varnish-misc at varnish-cache.org>
http://lists.varnish-cache.org/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/pipermail/varnish-misc/attachments/20101119/1f85dfd1/attachment-0003.html>