[Bug 1680261] Re: apt-secure ignoring allow-unauthenticated during apt-update
Nathan
dundir at gmail.com
Thu Apr 6 08:54:46 UTC 2017
Thanks for pointing that out, that would have saved some time If I'd
seen that the description section wasn't a simple description of what
the utility does.
I usually skip directly past the man page description section as in
almost every case I've come across it is a simple description of what
the utility is or does.
I still believe this is a valid bug insofar as the apt-get --allow-unauthenticated does not function as described.
Additionally, the manpage for apt-secure and apt-get are at odds
(inconsistent). The apt-secure page indicates the default behaviour of
not downloading packages that are unsigned may be overridden explicitly
for apt-get (--allow-unauthenticated is the only switch on the apt-get
manpage which addresses this, and it doesn't work).
The apt-secure does provide for ways to allow insecure archives first
and foremost (not optimal) and briefly mentions a Trusted option which
did refer to sources as a way of removing warnings.
Maybe I'm missing something, its my understanding that warnings are an
outputted warning and action continues, and errors actually stop a
process.
The allow-unauthenticated did not downgrade all errors relating to
signing to warnings. If it had, the apt-get update would have included
the new packages and it would find the packages during an install
command, but may not allow installation without explicit confirmation.
The error resulting from the apt-get install command with the
appropriate confirmation switch is a package not found error. Thus the
--allow-unauthenticated is not downgrading signing related errors to
warnings (which may along the line of though expressed in the
description of apt-secure, or not, the documentation is unclear).
As a result of the above inconsistencies, standard troubleshooting
practices would place a technically savvy user down a path that takes a
significant amount of time, unnecessarily.
In addition to that, the inconsistencies also move the performance of a
simple task of installing packages from a local resource into the realm
of tacit knowledge as one must make the determination what's failing to
work around the problem and anyone relying on the documentation will
have to resolve several conflicts within the documentation before a
solution can be found.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Foundations Bugs, which is subscribed to apt in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1680261
Title:
apt-secure ignoring allow-unauthenticated during apt-update
Status in apt package in Ubuntu:
Invalid
Bug description:
It appears apt-get update is completely ignoring the allow-
unauthenticated switch. This initially provided a significant
roadblock to getting the system to recognize a trusted local
repository as most literature and posts refer to use of this switch. I
was able to discover a workaround though the time invested was steep.
The [trusted=yes] option in sources.list(5) functions correctly and
will bypass this authentication check. It would be helpful at a
minimum if the apt --allow-unauthenticated description in the apt-get
documentation referred to sources.list(5) option trusted=yes with an
example if this switch is being deprecated.
Steps for Reproduction.
Bootup 16.10 LiveCD
Add to APT Sources
deb file:/tmp/local/ ./
Run the command, "apt-get --allow-unauthenticated update"
Output as follows with no internet connection:
https://pastebin.com/6h8tiHbN
*Initial apt-get --allow-unauthenticated update failed due to missing release file.
Generated generic release file to obtain the above output.
"apt install" for packages included cannot find desired package.
Local repo was set up via these instructions:
http://askubuntu.com/questions/170348/how-to-create-a-local-apt-repository
Packages.gz was generated using the below command.
dpkg-scanpackages ./ | gzip -9c > Packages.gz
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/1680261/+subscriptions
More information about the foundations-bugs
mailing list