Bug#1030271: dpkg-buildpackage: misleading error message when no signing key available

[Thorsten Glaser]

Package: dpkg
Version: 1.21.19
Severity: minor
X-Debbugs-Cc: t...@mirbsd.de

gpg: skipped "Thorsten Glaser <t...@mirbsd.de>": secret key not available
gpg: dpkg-sign.IRqYlate/dygraphs_2.2.0-4.dsc: clearsign failed: secret key not available
dpkg-buildpackage: error: failed to sign dygraphs_2.2.0-4.dsc file: key is not signature-capable

The error message is a bit misleading here.


-- Package-specific info:

-- System Information:
Debian Release: bookworm/sid
APT prefers unstable-debug
APT policy: (500, 'unstable-debug'), (500, 'buildd-unstable'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
merged-usr: no
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 5.10.0-20-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU threads)
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_FIRMWARE_WORKAROUND
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/lksh
Init: sysvinit (via /sbin/init)

Versions of packages dpkg depends on:
ii libbz2-1.0 1.0.8-5+b1
ii libc6 2.36-8
ii liblzma5 5.4.1-0.1
ii libmd0 1.0.4-2
ii libselinux1 3.4-1+b5
ii libzstd1 1.5.2+dfsg2-3
ii tar 1.34+dfsg-1.1
ii zlib1g 1:1.2.13.dfsg-1

dpkg recommends no packages.

Versions of packages dpkg suggests:
ii apt 2.5.5
pn debsig-verify <none>

-- no debconf information

[Guillem Jover]

Control: tag -1 moreinfo

On Wed, 2023-02-01 at 21:40:23 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Package: dpkg
> Version: 1.21.19
> Severity: minor
> X-Debbugs-Cc: t...@mirbsd.de

> gpg: skipped "Thorsten Glaser <t...@mirbsd.de>": secret key not available
> gpg: dpkg-sign.IRqYlate/dygraphs_2.2.0-4.dsc: clearsign failed: secret key not available
> dpkg-buildpackage: error: failed to sign dygraphs_2.2.0-4.dsc file: key is not signature-capable
>
> The error message is a bit misleading here.

Could you expand a bit, it's not directly obvious from the short
report. Is this about the "secret key not available" vs the
"key is not signature-capable"? Either of them? Something else?

Thanks,
Guillem

[Thorsten Glaser]

Guillem Jover dixit:

>report. Is this about the "secret key not available" vs the
>"key is not signature-capable"?

Yes, exactly: “secret key not available” is correct, the key
is only on one separate machine, “key is not signature-capable”
(reported by dpkg-buildpackage) is wrong. Sorry for not being
clear initially.

This is cosmetic, of course.

bye,
//mirabilos
--
15:41⎜<Lo-lan-do:#fusionforge> Somebody write a testsuite for helloworld :-)