LibreWolf repo address has changed [Solved]

[siamhie]

looking at the changes they made, I think this was a mistake was made on their end, and then they corrected it.

So forcing the update manually "sudo apt upgrade librewolf -y" has corrected it on my end?

[fehlix]

looking at the changes they made, I think this was a mistake was made on their end, and then they corrected it.

So forcing the update manually "sudo apt upgrade librewolf -y" has corrected it on my end?

Not what I wrote. The release info change confirmation is within the "apt update" part.
Upgrade to newer version of the package can be done but is not related to the already confirmed release info change.
I.E if you had already latest version of librewolf no need to try to upgrade.
The info you got from their page, is probably not explaining good enough what this is about,
and may lead to misinterpretation what needs to be done.

[siamhie]

How is one to know to do that when using the terminal? Maybe LW should have pointed that out on their installation/debian-migration page of the change.

I guess, after they changed repo, someone spotted they also needed to adjust the fields Origin and Label within the release file.
Anyone of those early birds who upgrade during that time from changing repo to adjusting/changing the repo-info fields,
had release info field which now changed.
And right, there is no good way to know in advanced.
OTOH, apt-secure is sometime to secure or better over-secure.
B/c the main security is provided by the gpg-repo keys, release-info change confirmation
does not realy add much security to the whole game.
So one could set Acquire::AllowReleaseInfoChange=true within apt- preferences
to accept always release-info change, with the rational
that release-info is signed by the GPG-key and get verified.
Which make the confirmation by the user not really needed, b/c no added security.

I don't mind that Debian bubble wraps us with security in mind.
Even the maintainer of extrepo states that "no warranty is made by the Debian project as to the security or quality of the software in these third-party repositories".

By the way, I just ran my updates on MX-23.4 XFCE VM and had no problems. It's still set to use MX Updater.
lw.jpg

You probably changed repo after the releasinfo changed was done on the server already, so nothing to confirm.

I ran into the same issue in the VM and followed the migration steps. Today all I did was check for updates all was good.
Just seemed my fluxbox install (using the terminal) ran into this information field issue last night.

[siamhie]

looking at the changes they made, I think this was a mistake was made on their end, and then they corrected it.

So forcing the update manually "sudo apt upgrade librewolf -y" has corrected it on my end?

Not what I wrote. The release info change confirmation is within the "apt update" part.
Upgrade to newer version of the package can be done but is not related to the already confirmed release info change.
I.E if you had already latest version of librewolf no need to try to upgrade.
The info you got from their page, is probably not explaining good enough what this is about,
and may lead to misinterpretation what needs to be done.

The first time I received that error (last night), I selected N (default) when I ran that command and LW didn't update,
so I reran that command a second time and selected Y and LW updated which is what is probably confusing me.

[fehlix]

The first time I received that error (last night), I selected N (default) when I ran that command and LW didn't update,
so I reran that command a second time and selected Y and LW updated which is what is probably confusing me.

Yes, if you reject accepting the changes when running the command

Code: Select all

sudo apt update

The new release file will be ignored and no packages lists updated. Hence nothing to upgrade if there would be a newer version.

[siamhie]

The first time I received that error (last night), I selected N (default) when I ran that command and LW didn't update,
so I reran that command a second time and selected Y and LW updated which is what is probably confusing me.

Yes, if you reject accepting the changes when running the command

Code: Select all

sudo apt update

The new release file will be ignored and no packages lists updated. Hence nothing to upgrade if there would be a newer version.

Common sense caught me when n was capitalized and y was not. I'm just glad everything is working again.

I do have nala set to check for updates when the upgrade command is used instead.

Code: Select all

# Set to false to disable auto updating the package list
# when running the upgrade command
auto_update = true

# Set to true to make full-upgrade the default
full_upgrade = true

[Mauser]

I don't know if this is related as I noticed this error that I quickly copied this part of the error before the window closed, "The following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG D29FBD5F93C0CFC3 Malte Jürgens <maltejur@dismail.de>" but I have updated MX23.4 XFCE already before seeing this thread. Is this a concern or is this to be ignored like some signature issues in the past that mean nothing?

[fehlix]

I don't know if this is related as I noticed this error that I quickly copied this part of the error before the window closed, "The following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG D29FBD5F93C0CFC3 Malte Jürgens <maltejur@dismail.de>" but I have updated MX23.4 XFCE already before seeing this thread. Is this a concern or is this to be ignored like some signature issues in the past that mean nothing?

It is related.
To fix the issue, you can reinstall librewolf from with MXPI->pop.Apps.->Browser->LibreWolf.
The updated installation routine for librewolf was added recently to MXPI in order to fix the repo-change and the expired key warning issue.
Without the re-installtion with the new repo, you would not get any update of the browser and also the warning would not go away by itself.

[Mauser]

I don't know if this is related as I noticed this error that I quickly copied this part of the error before the window closed, "The following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG D29FBD5F93C0CFC3 Malte Jürgens <maltejur@dismail.de>" but I have updated MX23.4 XFCE already before seeing this thread. Is this a concern or is this to be ignored like some signature issues in the past that mean nothing?

It is related.
To fix the issue, you can reinstall librewolf from with MXPI->pop.Apps.->Browser->LibreWolf.
The updated installation routine for librewolf was added recently to MXPI in order to fix the repo-change and the expired key warning issue.
Without the re-installtion with the new repo, you would not get any update of the browser and also the warning would not go away by itself.

Thank you for the answer. I am glad it wasn't a complicated process. All is good now.