can you try to disable RpmFusion repos? and re-run the dnf system- upgrade command. Please report it back

I run this command on my f23: > sudo dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=24 --allowerasing -y After 3,2 Gb of download I have get this error: > ... > freetype i686 2.6.3-2.fc24 fedora 366 k > freetype x86_64 2.6.3-2.fc24 fedora 360 k > freetype-devel x86_64 2.6.3-2.fc24 fedora 447 k > freetype-freeworld x86_64 2.5.5-2.fc24 rpmfusion-free-updates-testing > ... > The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next successful transaction. > You can remove cached packages by executing 'dnf clean packages'. > Error: Package freetype-freeworld-2.5.5-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm is not signed Some suggest?

After the upgrade to F23 I'm going to wait until rpmfusion is happy with their packages before going to F24. I find it rather necessary! regards Dave P On 22 June 2016 at 10:53, Paul Howarth <paul(a)city-fan.org&gt; wrote: > On 21/06/16 16:10, Dario Lesca wrote: >> >> I run this command on my f23: >> >>> sudo dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=24 --allowerasing -y >> >> >> After 3,2 Gb of download I have get this error: >> >>> ... >>> freetype i686 2.6.3-2.fc24 fedora >>> 366 k >>> freetype x86_64 2.6.3-2.fc24 fedora >>> 360 k >>> freetype-devel x86_64 2.6.3-2.fc24 fedora >>> 447 k >>> freetype-freeworld x86_64 2.5.5-2.fc24 >>> rpmfusion-free-updates-testing >>> ... >>> The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next successful >>> transaction. >>> You can remove cached packages by executing 'dnf clean packages'. >>> Error: Package freetype-freeworld-2.5.5-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm is not signed >> >> >> Some suggest? > > > Looks like some (maybe all?) of the fc24 packages are not signed. > > Got this this morning when updating my F24 box: > > Error: Package rpmfusion-free-release-24-0.1.noarch.rpm is not signed > > I currently have rpmfusion-free-release-23-0.1.noarch installed. > > Paul. -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk

2016-06-22 14:05 GMT+02:00 Sérgio Basto &amp;lt;serjux(a)gmail.com&amp;gt;: &gt; you may use --nogpgcheck &gt;

For the record, I hope to be able to fix that in the next hours.. (aka sign the packages from free and nonfree)

Thx

\-- -

Nicolas (kwizart)

> On 22 Jun 2016, at 15:01, Jeremy Reed <geezuslucifer(a)gmail.com > <mailto:geezuslucifer@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Even with --nogpgcheck I get: > > Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-updates', > disabling. > > try with: dnf —enable=*rpmfusion* —nogpgcheck <pkg>

> Sent from Nylas N1 > <https://link.nylas.com/link/8mokn4xzqies15fsoh5iwzupy/local-1aac4966-2487...;, > the extensible, open source mail client. > On Jun 22 2016, at 7:14 am, Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com > <mailto:kwizart@gmail.com>> wrote: > > 2016-06-22 14:05 GMT+02:00 Sérgio Basto <serjux(a)gmail.com > <mailto:serjux@gmail.com>>: > > you may use --nogpgcheck > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DNF_system_upgrade#Does_DNF_system_upgrade... > > For the record, I hope to be able to fix that in the next hours.. (aka > sign the packages from free and nonfree)

you may use --nogpgcheck https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DNF_system_upgrade#Does_DNF_system_upgrade...

On Dom, 2016-06-26 at 09:15 +1000, Chris Smart wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 01:05:19PM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > > > you may use --nogpgcheck > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DNF_system_upgrade#Does_DNF_system_u > > pgrade_verify_the_software_it_runs_or_installs_during_upgrade.3F > > > Yes, but that's really not a good idea, especially when the packages > are > delivered over non-secure links. > > IMO it's probably best to stick with 23 until the 24 packages can be > verified. All packages are signed now