You are not logged in.

#1 2019-05-25 12:38:20

prenex
Member
Registered: 2019-05-17
Posts: 27

arch32 archive packages: xproto signature is invalid

Dear Arch32 community!

I cannot copy-paste errors, because i am experimenting with installing a mesa package from 2017 archives.

After fixing some 404 and timeout errors now i have all the old packages, but i get a signature is invalid error.

I am new to arch and pacman btw. The system was the latest before i tried this installation from the archives.

I had to try an old mesa only for debugging a slowdown in 3D performance. I have a good cause to try this :-)

Van i force pacman to ignore (maybe too old) signatures? I Know they are from a good source and i only need the packages for debugging...

The way i am doing this is that i have added old 2017 mirrors from arch32 archives and hunted down further 3 packages with proper versions from the original arch linux archive. Before this i have removed mesa with everything that depends on mesa so that everything is clean. This latter was done with pacman -Rc mesa >> orig.txt.

I have tried to install first one of the three packages i have downloaded manually, with: pacman -U libxfont-1.5.2-1-i686.pkg.tar.xz and it depends on fontsproto, xproto, etc that exist in the arch32 archive mirror i set. It downloads it and tells "signature from Andreas Radke <emailaddr> is invalid.

I have tried pacman-key --init and --populate, but i am not sure what to do or how to ignore signedness. System time is todays time. Should i force it to 2017? :-)

Ps.: Sorry, i was writing from a tiny mobile phone...

Last edited by prenex (2019-05-25 12:55:07)

Offline

#2 2019-05-25 12:58:32

prenex
Member
Registered: 2019-05-17
Posts: 27

Re: arch32 archive packages: xproto signature is invalid

Ah.. Murphy's law... SigLevel = Never seems to be the solution...but now it has checksum problems for some reasons. I must tell i did a pacman -Syy without "u" ás i just wanted the database, but not to downgrade all the system... Only mesa and related stuff i am debugging...

Last edited by prenex (2019-05-25 13:05:57)

Offline

#3 2019-05-25 13:21:25

prenex
Member
Registered: 2019-05-17
Posts: 27

Re: arch32 archive packages: xproto signature is invalid

Maybe it is just the server erring.. Will try the original arch archive too because these are really old repos anyways from times they still had support for 32 bits... Will tell the results...

Offline

#4 2019-05-25 13:36:54

prenex
Member
Registered: 2019-05-17
Posts: 27

Re: arch32 archive packages: xproto signature is invalid

Every package checksum is bad which is highly unlikely... Can i ignore the checksums?

Last edited by prenex (2019-05-25 13:37:19)

Offline

#5 2019-05-25 15:35:32

prenex
Member
Registered: 2019-05-17
Posts: 27

Re: arch32 archive packages: xproto signature is invalid

I guess many packages did not have an md5sum and now it seems that it is necessary. I succesfully installed the packages after downgrading pacman itself to the version in the repository archives.

This latter is a dangerous thing, because it can lead to a state where your downgraded pacman does not work anymore so you brick your system... It have happened to me as old packman wanted libcrypto 1.0 and the new one only had 1.1 so it became unusable. Luckily i could just link 1.1 to act like 1.0 so neither the system is bricked (yet?) and old mesa, x and stuff i want to test got installed... I will test them now, this problem is solved and i only document it here.

Despite it worked for me i understand that normally i shouldnt really do pacman -Syy without the "u" flag and would not advise downgrading packman while keeping other packages the latest.

Offline

#6 2019-05-25 16:11:54

levi
Moderator
From: Yorkshire, UK
Registered: 2018-06-16
Posts: 462

Re: arch32 archive packages: xproto signature is invalid

Normally, it's quite safe to do a pacman -Sy (one or two y's, doesn't really matter).  Although we don't officially support partial upgrades here, it's part of the way you'd do a partial upgrade, ensuring that all of your dependencies are satisfied.

To be honest, I don't fully understand all of the steps you've taken here to downgrade, but it doesn't surprise me that you might end up in a state where you need to go back to an iso and rebuild the OS from scratch from time to time.


Architecture: pentium4, Testing repos: Yes, Hardware: EeePC 901+2GB RAM+OS half on the SD card.

Online

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB