Hi All,
It is time for me to upgrade my waterfox and waterfox classic.
Problem: I installed them so long ago I forgot where I got their rpm's from?
-T
On Fri, 2025-06-13 at 13:55 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Hi All,
It is time for me to upgrade my waterfox and waterfox classic.
Problem: I installed them so long ago I forgot where I got their rpm's from?
Really?
rpm -qi <name_of_package>
or of course an Internet search for 'waterfox RPM'
poc
On 6/13/25 2:08 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Fri, 2025-06-13 at 13:55 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Hi All,
It is time for me to upgrade my waterfox and waterfox classic.
Problem: I installed them so long ago I forgot where I got their rpm's from?
Really?
rpm -qi <name_of_package>
or of course an Internet search for 'waterfox RPM'
poc
Fedora 41
Found where I got them from from an old note of mine (hawkeye116477).
But I can't seem to get the dnf command correct
# dnf config-manager add-repo --from-repo=https://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:hawkeye116477:waterfox/Fedor...
Unknown argument "add-repo" for command "config-manager". Add "--help" for more information about the arguments.
Now what am I doing wrong?
-T
On Fri, 2025-06-13 at 14:19 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 6/13/25 2:08 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Fri, 2025-06-13 at 13:55 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Hi All,
It is time for me to upgrade my waterfox and waterfox classic.
Problem: I installed them so long ago I forgot where I got their rpm's from?
Really?
rpm -qi <name_of_package>
or of course an Internet search for 'waterfox RPM'
poc
Fedora 41
Found where I got them from from an old note of mine (hawkeye116477).
But I can't seem to get the dnf command correct
# dnf config-manager add-repo --from-repo=https://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:hawkeye116477:waterfox/Fedor...
Unknown argument "add-repo" for command "config-manager". Add "--help" for more information about the arguments.
Now what am I doing wrong?
$ man dnf5-config-manager ...
addrepo [--id=REPO_ID] <--set=REPO_OPTION=VALUE>+ [--add-or-replace] [--create-missing-dir] [--overwrite] [--save-filename=FILENAME] Adds a new repository defined using user options.
poc
On Fri, 2025-06-13 at 22:41 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Fri, 2025-06-13 at 14:19 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 6/13/25 2:08 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Fri, 2025-06-13 at 13:55 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Hi All,
It is time for me to upgrade my waterfox and waterfox classic.
Problem: I installed them so long ago I forgot where I got their rpm's from?
Really?
rpm -qi <name_of_package>
or of course an Internet search for 'waterfox RPM'
poc
Fedora 41
Found where I got them from from an old note of mine (hawkeye116477).
But I can't seem to get the dnf command correct
# dnf config-manager add-repo --from-repo=https://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:hawkeye116477:waterfox/Fedor...
Unknown argument "add-repo" for command "config-manager". Add "--help" for more information about the arguments.
Now what am I doing wrong?
$ man dnf5-config-manager ...
addrepo [--id=REPO_ID] <--set=REPO_OPTION=VALUE>+ [--add-or-replace] [--create-missing-dir] [--overwrite] [--save-filename=FILENAME] Adds a new repository defined using user options.
I missed an earlier part of the same page:
addrepo --from-repofile=REPO_CONFIGURATION_FILE_URL [--create-missing-dir] [--overwrite] [--save-filename=FILENAME] Adds a new repositories configuration file specified by URL or local path.
The file is copied without changes. The destination file name can be defined using the --save-filename option, otherwise it is taken from the source specification. If the .repo extension is missing from the destination filename, it will be added.
The destination directory path is the first path stored in the reposdir option (by default /etc/yum.repos.d). Overwriting/re‐ placing an existing file can be enabled using the --overwrite option. Before the new repositories configuration file is fi‐ nally saved, it is analyzed and tested for validity. Repository IDs are also tested. Repositories with the same ID must not be defined in other configuration files.
You get the point. It's "addrepo", not "add-repo".
poc
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Fri, 2025-06-13 at 14:19 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Found where I got them from from an old note of mine (hawkeye116477).
But I can't seem to get the dnf command correct
# dnf config-manager add-repo --from-repo=https://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:hawkeye116477:waterfox/Fedor...
Unknown argument "add-repo" for command "config-manager". Add "--help" for more information about the arguments.
Now what am I doing wrong?
$ man dnf5-config-manager ...
addrepo [--id=REPO_ID] <--set=REPO_OPTION=VALUE>+ [--add-or-replace] [--create-missing-dir] [--overwrite] [--save-filename=FILENAME] Adds a new repository defined using user options.
Yep, or from directly above that in the man page:
addrepo --from-repofile=REPO_CONFIGURATION_FILE_URL [--create-missing-dir] [--overwrite] [--save-filename=FILENAME] Adds a new repositories configuration file specified by URL or local path.
The short answer to the OP's "what am I doing wrong?" is: not reading the documentation, even when it suggests using the --help option, which also succinctly shows that in dnf5:
* the command is addrepo, not add-repo * the argument is --from-repofile, not --from-repo
There may be other differences that matter here as well, but I didn't bother to dig any further.
On 6/13/25 3:00 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Fri, 2025-06-13 at 14:19 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Found where I got them from from an old note of mine (hawkeye116477).
But I can't seem to get the dnf command correct
# dnf config-manager add-repo --from-repo=https://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:hawkeye116477:waterfox/Fedor...
Unknown argument "add-repo" for command "config-manager". Add "--help" for more information about the arguments.
Now what am I doing wrong?
$ man dnf5-config-manager ...
addrepo [--id=REPO_ID] <--set=REPO_OPTION=VALUE>+ [--add-or-replace] [--create-missing-dir] [--overwrite] [--save-filename=FILENAME] Adds a new repository defined using user options.Yep, or from directly above that in the man page:
addrepo --from-repofile=REPO_CONFIGURATION_FILE_URL [--create-missing-dir] [--overwrite] [--save-filename=FILENAME] Adds a new repositories configuration file specified by URL or local path.The short answer to the OP's "what am I doing wrong?" is: not reading the documentation, even when it suggests using the --help option, which also succinctly shows that in dnf5:
* the command is addrepo, not add-repo * the argument is --from-repofile, not --from-repoThere may be other differences that matter here as well, but I didn't bother to dig any further.
About fifteen typos later
# dnf config-manager addrepo --from-repofile=https://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:hawkeye116477:waterfox/Fedor...
https://download.opensuse.org/reposito 100% | 332.0 B/s | 325.0 B | 00m01s
Thank you!
But the repo 's install would not work, so I directly downloaded rpm's from. There were repos to install, but I just did the direct download.
https://software.opensuse.org/package/waterfox-classic-kpe https://software.opensuse.org/package/waterfox
On 6/13/25 3:28 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 6/13/25 3:00 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Fri, 2025-06-13 at 14:19 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Found where I got them from from an old note of mine (hawkeye116477).
But I can't seem to get the dnf command correct
# dnf config-manager add-repo --from-repo=https://download.opensuse.org/repositories/ home:hawkeye116477:waterfox/Fedora_41/home:hawkeye116477:waterfox.repo
Unknown argument "add-repo" for command "config-manager". Add "--help" for more information about the arguments.
Now what am I doing wrong?
$ man dnf5-config-manager ...
addrepo [--id=REPO_ID] <--set=REPO_OPTION=VALUE>+ [--add-or- replace] [--create-missing-dir] [--overwrite] [--save-filename=FILENAME] Adds a new repository defined using user options.
Yep, or from directly above that in the man page:
addrepo --from-repofile=REPO_CONFIGURATION_FILE_URL [--create-missing-dir] [--overwrite] [--save-filename=FILENAME] Adds a new repositories configuration file specified by URL or local path.
The short answer to the OP's "what am I doing wrong?" is: not reading the documentation, even when it suggests using the --help option, which also succinctly shows that in dnf5:
* the command is addrepo, not add-repo * the argument is --from-repofile, not --from-repo
There may be other differences that matter here as well, but I didn't bother to dig any further.
About fifteen typos later
# dnf config-manager addrepo --from-repofile=https:// download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:hawkeye116477:waterfox/ Fedora_41/home:hawkeye116477:waterfox.repo
https://download.opensuse.org/reposito 100% | 332.0 B/s | 325.0 B | 00m01s
Thank you!
But the repo 's install would not work, so I directly downloaded rpm's from. There were repos to install, but I just did the direct download.
https://software.opensuse.org/package/waterfox-classic-kpe https://software.opensuse.org/package/waterfox
Open SUSE pulled a "NOTTRUSTED".
1) would you trust it anyway?
2) if so, what is the workaround?
# dnf install waterfox-6.5.9-4.1.x86_64.rpm Updating and loading repositories: Repositories loaded. Package Arch Version Repository Size Installing: waterfox x86_64 6.5.9-4.1 @commandline 242.1 MiB
Transaction Summary: Installing: 1 package
Total size of inbound packages is 74 MiB. Need to download 0 B. After this operation, 242 MiB extra will be used (install 242 MiB, remove 0 B). Is this ok [y/N]: y Running transaction Transaction failed: Rpm transaction failed. Warning: skipped OpenPGP checks for 1 package from repository: @commandline - package waterfox-6.5.9-4.1.x86_64 does not verify: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 625a271e: NOTTRUSTED
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 6/13/25 3:28 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: Open SUSE pulled a "NOTTRUSTED".
[...]
- if so, what is the workaround?
# dnf install waterfox-6.5.9-4.1.x86_64.rpm
Not sure why you're installing it manually to be honest. I tested it in an F41 container and it worked just fine:
[root@20245a7c82c1 /]# dnf -qq list --installed waterfox Installed packages waterfox.x86_64 6.5.9-4.1 home_hawkeye116477_waterfox
That was after using:
dnf config-manager addrepo --from-repofile=https://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:hawkeye116477:waterfox/Fedor... dnf install waterfox
Updating and loading repositories: Repositories loaded. Package Arch Version Repository Size Installing: waterfox x86_64 6.5.9-4.1 @commandline 242.1 MiB
Transaction Summary: Installing: 1 package
Total size of inbound packages is 74 MiB. Need to download 0 B. After this operation, 242 MiB extra will be used (install 242 MiB, remove 0 B). Is this ok [y/N]: y Running transaction Transaction failed: Rpm transaction failed. Warning: skipped OpenPGP checks for 1 package from repository: @commandline
- package waterfox-6.5.9-4.1.x86_64 does not verify: Header V3 RSA/SHA256
Signature, key ID 625a271e: NOTTRUSTED
If you had the repo installed from ages ago, you very well may need to remove the key and install it again, as until very recently, rpm had no way to refresh GPG keys. (I don't think that's even in a released version of rpm yet, but if it is, it's not in F41 at the very least.)
So you have to use rpm -e gpg-pubkey-625a271e and then let dnf install it again (having added the repo properly).
[root@20245a7c82c1 /]# rpm -qi gpg-pubkey-625a271e | gpg --show-key pub rsa2048 2017-04-05 [SC] [expires: 2027-07-10] E64C7A04DC653D07ACA3EA585E62D791625A271E uid home:hawkeye116477 OBS Project home:hawkeye116477@build.opensuse.org
This is not much different than was needed for many other third-party repos after updating to Fedora 40 or whenever it was that the gpg backend in rpm was switch to sequoia, which does much better/stricter checking of keys.
Many third-party repos updated their keys rather than generated entirely new keys, which requires manual work from their users.
I don't know if anything other than the key expiration had to be changed for the home:hawkeye116477 repo key, but even in that case, rpm's inability to refresh keys requires such a change to be managed manually.
(Tangentially, and IMO, the smarter move is to generate an entirely new key, add it to the gpgkey parameter in the repo file, in addition to the existing key and then allow some time to pass before removing the old key. But that also presumes that they provide a package which manages the repo file rather than just some "hey, download this file and chuck it in place.")
None of this is really all that hard to do and is something anyone adding third-party repos to their system should be familiar with and comfortable doing.
On 6/13/25 5:51 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 6/13/25 3:28 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: Open SUSE pulled a "NOTTRUSTED".
[...]
- if so, what is the workaround?
# dnf install waterfox-6.5.9-4.1.x86_64.rpm
Not sure why you're installing it manually to be honest.
$ dnf provides waterfox Updating and loading repositories: WineHQ packages 100% | 10.5 KiB/s | 2.6 KiB | 00m00s virtio-win builds roughly matching wha 100% | 1.9 KiB/s | 1.8 KiB | 00m01s Repositories loaded. No matches found. If searching for a file, try specifying the full path or using a wildcard prefix ("*/") at the beginning.
I tested it in an F41 container and it worked just fine:
[root@20245a7c82c1 /]# dnf -qq list --installed waterfox Installed packages waterfox.x86_64 6.5.9-4.1 home_hawkeye116477_waterfoxThat was after using:
dnf config-manager addrepo --from-repofile=https://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:hawkeye116477:waterfox/Fedora_41/home:hawkeye116477:waterfox.repo dnf install waterfoxUpdating and loading repositories: Repositories loaded. Package Arch Version Repository Size Installing: waterfox x86_64 6.5.9-4.1 @commandline 242.1 MiB
Transaction Summary: Installing: 1 package
Total size of inbound packages is 74 MiB. Need to download 0 B. After this operation, 242 MiB extra will be used (install 242 MiB, remove 0 B). Is this ok [y/N]: y Running transaction Transaction failed: Rpm transaction failed. Warning: skipped OpenPGP checks for 1 package from repository: @commandline
- package waterfox-6.5.9-4.1.x86_64 does not verify: Header V3 RSA/SHA256
Signature, key ID 625a271e: NOTTRUSTED
If you had the repo installed from ages ago, you very well may need to remove the key and install it again, as until very recently, rpm had no way to refresh GPG keys. (I don't think that's even in a released version of rpm yet, but if it is, it's not in F41 at the very least.)
So you have to use rpm -e gpg-pubkey-625a271e and then let dnf install it again (having added the repo properly).
[root@20245a7c82c1 /]# rpm -qi gpg-pubkey-625a271e | gpg --show-key pub rsa2048 2017-04-05 [SC] [expires: 2027-07-10] E64C7A04DC653D07ACA3EA585E62D791625A271E uid home:hawkeye116477 OBS Project <home:hawkeye116477@build.opensuse.org>This is not much different than was needed for many other third-party repos after updating to Fedora 40 or whenever it was that the gpg backend in rpm was switch to sequoia, which does much better/stricter checking of keys.
Many third-party repos updated their keys rather than generated entirely new keys, which requires manual work from their users.
I don't know if anything other than the key expiration had to be changed for the home:hawkeye116477 repo key, but even in that case, rpm's inability to refresh keys requires such a change to be managed manually.
(Tangentially, and IMO, the smarter move is to generate an entirely new key, add it to the gpgkey parameter in the repo file, in addition to the existing key and then allow some time to pass before removing the old key. But that also presumes that they provide a package which manages the repo file rather than just some "hey, download this file and chuck it in place.")
None of this is really all that hard to do and is something anyone adding third-party repos to their system should be familiar with and comfortable doing.
On 6/13/25 5:51 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 6/13/25 3:28 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: Open SUSE pulled a "NOTTRUSTED".
[...]
- if so, what is the workaround?
# dnf install waterfox-6.5.9-4.1.x86_64.rpm
Not sure why you're installing it manually to be honest. I tested it in an F41 container and it worked just fine:
[root@20245a7c82c1 /]# dnf -qq list --installed waterfox Installed packages waterfox.x86_64 6.5.9-4.1 home_hawkeye116477_waterfoxThat was after using:
dnf config-manager addrepo --from-repofile=https://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:hawkeye116477:waterfox/Fedora_41/home:hawkeye116477:waterfox.repo dnf install waterfoxUpdating and loading repositories: Repositories loaded. Package Arch Version Repository Size Installing: waterfox x86_64 6.5.9-4.1 @commandline 242.1 MiB
Transaction Summary: Installing: 1 package
Total size of inbound packages is 74 MiB. Need to download 0 B. After this operation, 242 MiB extra will be used (install 242 MiB, remove 0 B). Is this ok [y/N]: y Running transaction Transaction failed: Rpm transaction failed. Warning: skipped OpenPGP checks for 1 package from repository: @commandline
- package waterfox-6.5.9-4.1.x86_64 does not verify: Header V3 RSA/SHA256
Signature, key ID 625a271e: NOTTRUSTED
If you had the repo installed from ages ago, you very well may need to remove the key and install it again, as until very recently, rpm had no way to refresh GPG keys. (I don't think that's even in a released version of rpm yet, but if it is, it's not in F41 at the very least.)
So you have to use rpm -e gpg-pubkey-625a271e and then let dnf install it again (having added the repo properly).
[root@20245a7c82c1 /]# rpm -qi gpg-pubkey-625a271e | gpg --show-key pub rsa2048 2017-04-05 [SC] [expires: 2027-07-10] E64C7A04DC653D07ACA3EA585E62D791625A271E uid home:hawkeye116477 OBS Project <home:hawkeye116477@build.opensuse.org>This is not much different than was needed for many other third-party repos after updating to Fedora 40 or whenever it was that the gpg backend in rpm was switch to sequoia, which does much better/stricter checking of keys.
Many third-party repos updated their keys rather than generated entirely new keys, which requires manual work from their users.
I don't know if anything other than the key expiration had to be changed for the home:hawkeye116477 repo key, but even in that case, rpm's inability to refresh keys requires such a change to be managed manually.
(Tangentially, and IMO, the smarter move is to generate an entirely new key, add it to the gpgkey parameter in the repo file, in addition to the existing key and then allow some time to pass before removing the old key. But that also presumes that they provide a package which manages the repo file rather than just some "hey, download this file and chuck it in place.")
None of this is really all that hard to do and is something anyone adding third-party repos to their system should be familiar with and comfortable doing.
I gave up and am just using each from their tar balls
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 6/13/25 5:51 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 6/13/25 3:28 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: Open SUSE pulled a "NOTTRUSTED".
[...]
- if so, what is the workaround?
# dnf install waterfox-6.5.9-4.1.x86_64.rpm
Not sure why you're installing it manually to be honest.
$ dnf provides waterfox Updating and loading repositories: WineHQ packages 100% | 10.5 KiB/s | 2.6 KiB | 00m00s virtio-win builds roughly matching wha 100% | 1.9 KiB/s | 1.8 KiB | 00m01s Repositories loaded. No matches found. If searching for a file, try specifying the full path or using a wildcard prefix ("*/") at the beginning.
Without listing the repos you have and the contents of the waterfox repo, how does this tell us anything useful? :/
We already know that it is in a third-party repo in the opeunSUSE Build Service, so I would expect that you have it enabled. If you don't for some reason, then why you don't might be relevant. Having to guess at things just makes this a painful process (and makes me wonder why I bother).
I can only guess that your earlier 'Open SUSE pulled a "NOTTRUSTED".' comment is related, but I showed that it worked fine for in a Fedora 41 container and even tried to provide some details as to why you might have gotten whatever failures you got. You didn't respond to any of those details nor provide any further information about the actual failures you had.
It would be much better for everyone if you provided more actual details.
Here, again and in more detail, are the steps I took in a Fedora 41 container which show that adding the third-party waterfox repo and installing waterfox work as expected.
I am not trying to imply anything about whether this is a trusted repo or not. I have no interest in running waterfox myself, so I don't need to evaluate whether I want to get the package from this repo or not. That's for you to decide.
[root@925e6b05d9f9 /]# dnf repolist repo id repo name fedora Fedora 41 - x86_64 fedora-cisco-openh264 Fedora 41 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64 updates Fedora 41 - x86_64 - Updates [root@925e6b05d9f9 /]#
[root@925e6b05d9f9 /]# dnf config-manager addrepo --from-repofile=https://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:hawkeye116477:waterfox/Fedor...
[root@925e6b05d9f9 /]# dnf repolist repo id repo name fedora Fedora 41 - x86_64 fedora-cisco-openh264 Fedora 41 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64 updates Fedora 41 - x86_64 - Updates [root@925e6b05d9f9 /]#
[root@925e6b05d9f9 /]# cat /etc/yum.repos.d/home:hawkeye116477:waterfox.repo [home_hawkeye116477_waterfox] name=Waterfox (deb/pkg.tar.xz/rpm/AppImage) (Fedora_41) type=rpm-md baseurl=https://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/hawkeye116477:/waterfox/Fed... gpgcheck=1 gpgkey=https://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/hawkeye116477:/waterfox/Fed... enabled=1
[root@925e6b05d9f9 /]# dnf list waterfox Updating and loading repositories: Repositories loaded. Available packages waterfox.src 6.5.9-4.1 home_hawkeye116477_waterfox waterfox.x86_64 6.5.9-4.1 home_hawkeye116477_waterfox
[root@925e6b05d9f9 /]# dnf install -y waterfox Updating and loading repositories: Repositories loaded. Package Arch Version Repository Size Installing: waterfox x86_64 6.5.9-4.1 home_hawkeye116477_waterfox 242.9 MiB Installing dependencies: ... Importing OpenPGP key 0x625A271E: UserID : "home:hawkeye116477 OBS Project home:hawkeye116477@build.opensuse.org" Fingerprint: E64C7A04DC653D07ACA3EA585E62D791625A271E From : https://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/hawkeye116477:/waterfox/Fed... The key was successfully imported. ... Complete!
[root@925e6b05d9f9 /]# dnf list --installed waterfox Installed packages waterfox.x86_64 6.5.9-4.1 home_hawkeye116477_waterfox
Hopefully, you'll read that carefully and if any of the commands are unclear you can check the documentation for them, then get back to us with specific questions about the command and/or how and where things went wrong for you, showing the steps you took, the output you got, and why it may differ from what you expect. Don't make us guess, please.
On 6/13/25 5:19 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 6/13/25 2:08 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Fri, 2025-06-13 at 13:55 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Hi All,
It is time for me to upgrade my waterfox and waterfox classic.
Problem: I installed them so long ago I forgot where I got their rpm's from?
Really?
rpm -qi <name_of_package>
or of course an Internet search for 'waterfox RPM'
poc
Fedora 41
Found where I got them from from an old note of mine (hawkeye116477).
But I can't seem to get the dnf command correct
# dnf config-manager add-repo --from-repo=https://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:hawkeye116477:waterfox/Fedor...
Unknown argument "add-repo" for command "config-manager". Add "--help" for more information about the arguments.
Now what am I doing wrong?
-T
Explicitly use dnf4.
On Fri, 2025-06-13 at 23:40 -0400, Robert McBroom via users wrote:
Now what am I doing wrong?
-T
Explicitly use dnf4.
I disagree. At some point dnf4 will disappear, so it's better to learn how to do it properly. If you use Fedora to get the latest and greatest, you can't simultaneously want to keep the old stuff you feel comfortable with. There are other distros that can give you that if it's important to you.
poc
On 6/13/25 6:55 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 6/13/25 5:51 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 6/13/25 3:28 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: Open SUSE pulled a "NOTTRUSTED".
[...]
- if so, what is the workaround?
# dnf install waterfox-6.5.9-4.1.x86_64.rpm
Not sure why you're installing it manually to be honest.
$ dnf provides waterfox Updating and loading repositories: WineHQ packages 100% | 10.5 KiB/s | 2.6 KiB | 00m00s virtio-win builds roughly matching wha 100% | 1.9 KiB/s | 1.8 KiB | 00m01s Repositories loaded. No matches found. If searching for a file, try specifying the full path or using a wildcard prefix ("*/") at the beginning.
Without listing the repos you have and the contents of the waterfox repo, how does this tell us anything useful? :/
We already know that it is in a third-party repo in the opeunSUSE Build Service, so I would expect that you have it enabled. If you don't for some reason, then why you don't might be relevant. Having to guess at things just makes this a painful process (and makes me wonder why I bother).
I can only guess that your earlier 'Open SUSE pulled a "NOTTRUSTED".' comment is related, but I showed that it worked fine for in a Fedora 41 container and even tried to provide some details as to why you might have gotten whatever failures you got. You didn't respond to any of those details nor provide any further information about the actual failures you had.
It would be much better for everyone if you provided more actual details.
Here, again and in more detail, are the steps I took in a Fedora 41 container which show that adding the third-party waterfox repo and installing waterfox work as expected.
I am not trying to imply anything about whether this is a trusted repo or not. I have no interest in running waterfox myself, so I don't need to evaluate whether I want to get the package from this repo or not. That's for you to decide.
[root@925e6b05d9f9 /]# dnf repolist repo id repo name fedora Fedora 41 - x86_64 fedora-cisco-openh264 Fedora 41 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64 updates Fedora 41 - x86_64 - Updates [root@925e6b05d9f9 /]# [root@925e6b05d9f9 /]# dnf config-manager addrepo --from-repofile=https://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:hawkeye116477:waterfox/Fedora_41/home:hawkeye116477:waterfox.repo [root@925e6b05d9f9 /]# dnf repolist repo id repo name fedora Fedora 41 - x86_64 fedora-cisco-openh264 Fedora 41 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64 updates Fedora 41 - x86_64 - Updates [root@925e6b05d9f9 /]# [root@925e6b05d9f9 /]# cat /etc/yum.repos.d/home\:hawkeye116477\:waterfox.repo [home_hawkeye116477_waterfox] name=Waterfox (deb/pkg.tar.xz/rpm/AppImage) (Fedora_41) type=rpm-md baseurl=https://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/hawkeye116477:/waterfox/Fedora_41/ gpgcheck=1 gpgkey=https://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/hawkeye116477:/waterfox/Fedora_41/repodata/repomd.xml.key enabled=1 [root@925e6b05d9f9 /]# dnf list waterfox Updating and loading repositories: Repositories loaded. Available packages waterfox.src 6.5.9-4.1 home_hawkeye116477_waterfox waterfox.x86_64 6.5.9-4.1 home_hawkeye116477_waterfox [root@925e6b05d9f9 /]# dnf install -y waterfox Updating and loading repositories: Repositories loaded. Package Arch Version Repository Size Installing: waterfox x86_64 6.5.9-4.1 home_hawkeye116477_waterfox 242.9 MiB Installing dependencies: ... Importing OpenPGP key 0x625A271E: UserID : "home:hawkeye116477 OBS Project <home:hawkeye116477@build.opensuse.org>" Fingerprint: E64C7A04DC653D07ACA3EA585E62D791625A271E From : https://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/hawkeye116477:/waterfox/Fedora_41/repodata/repomd.xml.key The key was successfully imported. ... Complete! [root@925e6b05d9f9 /]# dnf list --installed waterfox Installed packages waterfox.x86_64 6.5.9-4.1 home_hawkeye116477_waterfoxHopefully, you'll read that carefully and if any of the commands are unclear you can check the documentation for them, then get back to us with specific questions about the command and/or how and where things went wrong for you, showing the steps you took, the output you got, and why it may differ from what you expect. Don't make us guess, please.
Hi Todd,
And thank you for all your assistance.
All the information necessary to assist me with my question was provided in my initial post and subsequent posts. Somewhere you got lost or confused. Would you like me to go over each of your points above and explain what you missed point by point?
-T
On Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 2:12 PM ToddAndMargo via users users@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 6/13/25 6:55 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
[...]
Hi Todd,
And thank you for all your assistance.
All the information necessary to assist me with my question was provided in my initial post and subsequent posts. Somewhere you got lost or confused. Would you like me to go over each of your points above and explain what you missed point by point?
I would like to see that. I don't have my orbuculum handy.
Here is your initial post:
It is time for me to upgrade my waterfox and waterfox classic.
Problem: I installed them so long ago I forgot where I got their rpm's from?
Jeff
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
All the information necessary to assist me with my question was provided in my initial post and subsequent posts. Somewhere you got lost or confused. Would you like me to go over each of your points above and explain what you missed point by point?
Wow. That's just stunning. Your attitude is just rude and uncalled for after I tried to help with a fair amount of patience and detail.
Please don't bother. I am confident that I did not overlook useful information in your posts. And I don't want to waste more of my time or other list readers in trying to assist you.
I'll try to remember to avoid wading into future threads from you as well since it almost always annoys me. :(
On 6/14/25 11:43 AM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 2:12 PM ToddAndMargo via users users@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 6/13/25 6:55 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
[...]
Hi Todd,
And thank you for all your assistance.
All the information necessary to assist me with my question was provided in my initial post and subsequent posts. Somewhere you got lost or confused. Would you like me to go over each of your points above and explain what you missed point by point?
I would like to see that. I don't have my orbuculum handy.
Here is your initial post:
It is time for me to upgrade my waterfox and waterfox classic.
Problem: I installed them so long ago I forgot where I got their rpm's from?
Jeff
Hi Jeff,
The question is where can I re-find the rpms for Waterfox and Waterfox Classic. There is no missing information.
By the way, the answer is:
https://software.opensuse.org/package/waterfox-classic-kpe https://software.opensuse.org/package/waterfox
Perhaps you were expanding the request to something larger than the question I asked? I am guilty of that myself at times.
-T
On 6/14/25 12:22 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
All the information necessary to assist me with my question was provided in my initial post and subsequent posts. Somewhere you got lost or confused. Would you like me to go over each of your points above and explain what you missed point by point?
Wow. That's just stunning. Your attitude is just rude and uncalled for after I tried to help with a fair amount of patience and detail.
No you were not. You were looking for an opportunity to condescend.
Please don't bother. I am confident that I did not overlook useful information in your posts. And I don't want to waste more of my time or other list readers in trying to assist you.
Yes, please do not waste time repeating what other have given me and been thanked for.
I'll try to remember to avoid wading into future threads from you as well since it almost always annoys me. :(
Thank you "Oh condescending one". That will keep me from having to killfile you.
On Sun, Jun 15, 2025 at 4:51 PM ToddAndMargo via users users@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 6/14/25 11:43 AM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 2:12 PM ToddAndMargo via users users@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 6/13/25 6:55 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
[...]
Hi Todd,
And thank you for all your assistance.
All the information necessary to assist me with my question was provided in my initial post and subsequent posts. Somewhere you got lost or confused. Would you like me to go over each of your points above and explain what you missed point by point?
I would like to see that. I don't have my orbuculum handy.
Here is your initial post:
It is time for me to upgrade my waterfox and waterfox classic.
Problem: I installed them so long ago I forgot where I got their rpm's from?
Jeff
Hi Jeff,
The question is where can I re-find the rpms for Waterfox and Waterfox Classic. There is no missing information.
By the way, the answer is:
https://software.opensuse.org/package/waterfox-classic-kpe https://software.opensuse.org/package/waterfoxPerhaps you were expanding the request to something larger than the question I asked? I am guilty of that myself at times.
No.
Your second post -- a follow up to Patrick O'Callaghan who told you how to find the repo -- was:
But I can't seem to get the dnf command correct ... Now what am I doing wrong?
That's when Todd Z started providing the commands to help you. In this case, he helped you with the use of '--from-repo', which should have been 'addrepo --from-repofile=<file>.'
However, you still had problems, and later said:
About fifteen typos later ... But the repo 's install would not work...
So Todd Z gave you all the commands. He also explained possible problems with the signing keys used to install waterfox, and provided commands to help with that, too.
Maybe you are getting old and misremembering things?
Jeff
On 6/15/25 3:33 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2025 at 4:51 PM ToddAndMargo via users users@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 6/14/25 11:43 AM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 2:12 PM ToddAndMargo via users users@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 6/13/25 6:55 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
[...]
Hi Todd,
And thank you for all your assistance.
All the information necessary to assist me with my question was provided in my initial post and subsequent posts. Somewhere you got lost or confused. Would you like me to go over each of your points above and explain what you missed point by point?
I would like to see that. I don't have my orbuculum handy.
Here is your initial post:
> It is time for me to upgrade my waterfox and waterfox classic. > > Problem: I installed them so long ago I forgot where > I got their rpm's from?Jeff
Hi Jeff,
The question is where can I re-find the rpms for Waterfox and Waterfox Classic. There is no missing information.
By the way, the answer is:
https://software.opensuse.org/package/waterfox-classic-kpe https://software.opensuse.org/package/waterfoxPerhaps you were expanding the request to something larger than the question I asked? I am guilty of that myself at times.
No.
What was wrong with the first post?
Your second post -- a follow up to Patrick O'Callaghan who told you how to find the repo -- was:
> But I can't seem to get the dnf command correct > ... > Now what am I doing wrong?
And Patrick along with Todd Z both answered what I was doing wrong. It was mainly typos and search.brave.com AI answer of the DNF5 command that I kept goofing. The AI was quoting the manual page that I was accused of not reading.
That's when Todd Z started providing the commands to help you. In this case, he helped you with the use of '--from-repo', which should have been 'addrepo --from-repofile=<file>.'
And I thanked him for it.
However, you still had problems, and later said:
> About fifteen typos later > ... > But the repo 's install would not work...So Todd Z gave you all the commands.
and other folk did too.
He also explained possible problems with the signing keys used to install waterfox, and provided commands to help with that, too.
The repo gave a warning of
Warning: skipped OpenPGP checks for 1 package from repository: @commandline
So I removed the repo and downloaded the tar ball instead. I did state this. That should have ended things, unless someone was curious about something, which is fine by me.
Maybe you are getting old and misremembering things?
Jeff
Thanking him for his help and doing something different annoyed him, so he decided to condescend. He really, really wanted me to (re)install the repo the gave a bad rpm of Waterfox.
When people who know what they are doing need more information, they just ask for it.
When people want to condescend, they go off on a tirade about not being given enough information and how annoying they find that.
On Sun, Jun 15, 2025 at 7:31 PM ToddAndMargo via users users@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 6/15/25 3:33 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2025 at 4:51 PM ToddAndMargo via users users@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 6/14/25 11:43 AM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 2:12 PM ToddAndMargo via users users@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 6/13/25 6:55 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
[...]
Hi Todd,
And thank you for all your assistance.
All the information necessary to assist me with my question was provided in my initial post and subsequent posts. Somewhere you got lost or confused. Would you like me to go over each of your points above and explain what you missed point by point?
I would like to see that. I don't have my orbuculum handy.
Here is your initial post:
> It is time for me to upgrade my waterfox and waterfox classic. > > Problem: I installed them so long ago I forgot where > I got their rpm's from?Jeff
Hi Jeff,
The question is where can I re-find the rpms for Waterfox and Waterfox Classic. There is no missing information.
By the way, the answer is:
https://software.opensuse.org/package/waterfox-classic-kpe https://software.opensuse.org/package/waterfoxPerhaps you were expanding the request to something larger than the question I asked? I am guilty of that myself at times.
No.
What was wrong with the first post?
Your second post -- a follow up to Patrick O'Callaghan who told you how to find the repo -- was:
> But I can't seem to get the dnf command correct > ... > Now what am I doing wrong?And Patrick along with Todd Z both answered what I was doing wrong. It was mainly typos and search.brave.com AI answer of the DNF5 command that I kept goofing. The AI was quoting the manual page that I was accused of not reading.
That's when Todd Z started providing the commands to help you. In this case, he helped you with the use of '--from-repo', which should have been 'addrepo --from-repofile=<file>.'
And I thanked him for it.
However, you still had problems, and later said:
> About fifteen typos later > ... > But the repo 's install would not work...So Todd Z gave you all the commands.
and other folk did too.
He also explained possible problems with the signing keys used to install waterfox, and provided commands to help with that, too.
The repo gave a warning of
Warning: skipped OpenPGP checks for 1 packagefrom repository: @commandline
So I removed the repo and downloaded the tar ball instead. I did state this. That should have ended things, unless someone was curious about something, which is fine by me.
Maybe you are getting old and misremembering things?
Jeff
Thanking him for his help and doing something different annoyed him, so he decided to condescend. He really, really wanted me to (re)install the repo the gave a bad rpm of Waterfox.
When people who know what they are doing need more information, they just ask for it.
When people want to condescend, they go off on a tirade about not being given enough information and how annoying they find that.
Plonk!
I will just top-post here because I am not really responding to any part of the message.
This is a mailing list that is archived. It would be helpful to future readers stumped at a similar issue later on, to be specific in what the problem was, and what worked. Just summarize what helped, or be specific in your response to a previous suggestion. It might also be helpful to tag the particular subject line with an indicator that it contains the solution. Thanking people is great, and should be done -- everyone is a volunteer who is helping with their knowledge, and all at the expense of their time and effort that could be spent on other personal things for them -- but their work is even more appreciated if that help that they provide here can make a difference to others.
I think that is what at least some of us are trying to say.
Many thanks and best wishes, Ranjan
On Sun Jun15'25 04:30:53PM, Community Support for Fedora Users wrote:
From: ToddAndMargo via users users@lists.fedoraproject.org Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 16:30:53 -0700 To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org Cc: ToddAndMargo ToddAndMargo@zoho.com Reply-To: Community support for Fedora users users@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: waterfox rpms?
On 6/15/25 3:33 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2025 at 4:51 PM ToddAndMargo via users users@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 6/14/25 11:43 AM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 2:12 PM ToddAndMargo via users users@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 6/13/25 6:55 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
[...]
Hi Todd,
And thank you for all your assistance.
All the information necessary to assist me with my question was provided in my initial post and subsequent posts. Somewhere you got lost or confused. Would you like me to go over each of your points above and explain what you missed point by point?
I would like to see that. I don't have my orbuculum handy.
Here is your initial post:
> It is time for me to upgrade my waterfox and waterfox classic. > > Problem: I installed them so long ago I forgot where > I got their rpm's from?Jeff
Hi Jeff,
The question is where can I re-find the rpms for Waterfox and Waterfox Classic. There is no missing information.
By the way, the answer is:
https://software.opensuse.org/package/waterfox-classic-kpe https://software.opensuse.org/package/waterfoxPerhaps you were expanding the request to something larger than the question I asked? I am guilty of that myself at times.
No.
What was wrong with the first post?
Your second post -- a follow up to Patrick O'Callaghan who told you how to find the repo -- was:
> But I can't seem to get the dnf command correct > ... > Now what am I doing wrong?And Patrick along with Todd Z both answered what I was doing wrong. It was mainly typos and search.brave.com AI answer of the DNF5 command that I kept goofing. The AI was quoting the manual page that I was accused of not reading.
That's when Todd Z started providing the commands to help you. In this case, he helped you with the use of '--from-repo', which should have been 'addrepo --from-repofile=<file>.'
And I thanked him for it.
However, you still had problems, and later said:
> About fifteen typos later > ... > But the repo 's install would not work...So Todd Z gave you all the commands.
and other folk did too.
He also explained possible problems with the signing keys used to install waterfox, and provided commands to help with that, too.
The repo gave a warning of
Warning: skipped OpenPGP checks for 1 packagefrom repository: @commandline
So I removed the repo and downloaded the tar ball instead. I did state this. That should have ended things, unless someone was curious about something, which is fine by me.
Maybe you are getting old and misremembering things?
Jeff
Thanking him for his help and doing something different annoyed him, so he decided to condescend. He really, really wanted me to (re)install the repo the gave a bad rpm of Waterfox.
When people who know what they are doing need more information, they just ask for it.
When people want to condescend, they go off on a tirade about not being given enough information and how annoying they find that.
-- _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
On Sun, 2025-06-15 at 19:22 -0500, Ranjan Maitra via users wrote:
This is a mailing list that is archived. It would be helpful to future readers stumped at a similar issue later on, to be specific in what the problem was, and what worked. Just summarize what helped, or be specific in your response to a previous suggestion. It might also be helpful to tag the particular subject line with an indicator that it contains the solution. Thanking people is great, and should be done -- everyone is a volunteer who is helping with their knowledge, and all at the expense of their time and effort that could be spent on other personal things for them -- but their work is even more appreciated if that help that they provide here can make a difference to others.
Agreed. A widespread convention is to add "- SOLVED" to the subject line when the solution has been found.
I'd also add my voice to the frequent requests that people *trim their posts* (as well as not top-posting). As you say, this is an archived list, so anything not necessary for context in the reply shouldn't be there.
poc
On Mon, 2025-06-16 at 09:55 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 6/16/25 3:59 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
A widespread convention is to add "- SOLVED" to the subject line when the solution has been found.
What format do you prfefer?
Re: SOLVED - waterfox rpms? SOLVED Re: - waterfox rpms? Re: waterfox rpms? = SOLVED
As I already said, adding '- SOLVED' to the subject line:
Re: waterfox rpms? - SOLVED
poc
On Mon, 2025-06-16 at 09:55 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
What format do you prfefer?
Re: SOLVED - waterfox rpms? SOLVED Re: - waterfox rpms? Re: waterfox rpms? = SOLVEDOr just anywhere?
Don't type things in front of RE: you get weird behaviour with some mail clients and servers on any further replies (and you *will* get some). e.g. Re: SOLVED: Re: et cetera.
Don't type things in front of existing subject lines. For those daft systems sorting by subject line and ignoring threading, it's now become a rogue response.
*Adding* something to the end of a subject gives the least surprises.
On 6/16/25 10:43 PM, Tim via users wrote:
On Mon, 2025-06-16 at 09:55 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
What format do you prfefer?
Re: SOLVED - waterfox rpms? SOLVED Re: - waterfox rpms? Re: waterfox rpms? = SOLVEDOr just anywhere?
Don't type things in front of RE: you get weird behaviour with some mail clients and servers on any further replies (and you *will* get some). e.g. Re: SOLVED: Re: et cetera.
Don't type things in front of existing subject lines. For those daft systems sorting by subject line and ignoring threading, it's now become a rogue response.
*Adding* something to the end of a subject gives the least surprises.
Thank you!
-
Jeffrey Walton -
Patrick O'Callaghan -
Ranjan Maitra -
Robert McBroom -
Tim -
Todd Zullinger -
ToddAndMargo