[jitsi-users] Missing key for Jitsi nightly installation


#1

I'm setting up a new system following the instructions for the nightly
repository:

  https://jitsi.org/Main/DebianNightlyRepository

The OpenPGP key provided provided by following the instructions seems to
be a different one than is actually needed. I get this error instead
when trying to install. It is asking for a different key:

  W: GPG error: http://download.jitsi.org unstable/
  Release: The following signatures couldn't be verified
  because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY
  C697D823EB0AB654

Checking the old system, where jitsi is already installed, that key
isn't available there either. Does the key file need to be updated here?

  https://download.jitsi.org/jitsi-key.gpg.key

The instructions seem to install this instead:

pub 4096R/2DC1389C 2016-06-23
Key fingerprint = 66A9 CD05 95D6 AFA2 4729 0D3B EF8B 479E 2DC1 389C
uid Jitsi <dev@jitsi.org>
sub 4096R/88D3172B 2016-06-23

Which is the right key for the nightly builds nowadays?

Regards,
Lars


#2

Hi,

I'm setting up a new system following the instructions for the nightly
repository:

  https://jitsi.org/Main/DebianNightlyRepository

The OpenPGP key provided provided by following the instructions seems to
be a different one than is actually needed. I get this error instead
when trying to install. It is asking for a different key:

        W: GPG error: http://download.jitsi.org unstable/
        Release: The following signatures couldn't be verified
        because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY
        C697D823EB0AB654

Checking the old system, where jitsi is already installed, that key
isn't available there either. Does the key file need to be updated here?

  https://download.jitsi.org/jitsi-key.gpg.key

This is the correct key.

The instructions seem to install this instead:

pub 4096R/2DC1389C 2016-06-23
Key fingerprint = 66A9 CD05 95D6 AFA2 4729 0D3B EF8B 479E 2DC1 389C
uid Jitsi <dev@jitsi.org>
sub 4096R/88D3172B 2016-06-23

Which is the right key for the nightly builds nowadays?

This is the correct one. I have this in my list of keys:

pub 4096R/2DC1389C 2016-06-23
      Key fingerprint = 66A9 CD05 95D6 AFA2 4729 0D3B EF8B 479E 2DC1 389C
uid Jitsi <dev@jitsi.org>
sub 4096R/88D3172B 2016-06-23

When I remove it I got this:
Err:9 https://download.jitsi.org unstable/ InRelease
  The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key
is not available: NO_PUBKEY EF8B479E2DC1389C
Fetched 836 kB in 0s (986 kB/s)
Reading package lists... Done
W: An error occurred during the signature verification. The repository
is not updated and the previous index files will be used. GPG error:
https://download.jitsi.org unstable/ InRelease: The following
signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not
available: NO_PUBKEY EF8B479E2DC1389C
W: Failed to fetch https://download.jitsi.org/unstable/InRelease The
following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is
not available: NO_PUBKEY EF8B479E2DC1389C
W: Some index files failed to download. They have been ignored, or old
ones used instead.

The only thing I see, that C697D823EB0AB654 is the old key that was
used in the old repo, which is no longer used it was 'deb
http://download.jitsi.org/deb unstable/'.
While the new and actual one is: 'deb https://download.jitsi.org
unstable/', I suppose you have added the old repo.

Regards
damencho

···

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 5:05 AM, Lars Noodén <lars.nooden@gmail.com> wrote:

Regards,
Lars

_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users@jitsi.org
Unsubscribe instructions and other list options:
http://lists.jitsi.org/mailman/listinfo/users


#3

[snip]

The only thing I see, that C697D823EB0AB654 is the old key that was
used in the old repo, which is no longer used it was 'deb
http://download.jitsi.org/deb unstable/'.
While the new and actual one is: 'deb https://download.jitsi.org
unstable/', I suppose you have added the old repo.

Thanks. It seems I did have the old repository. I needed to be more
careful in porting over old configurations to new machines.
Changing to the new repository worked as expected.

Regards,
Lars

···

On 05/04/2017 04:26 PM, Damian Minkov wrote: