0

I have a puppet setup which adds the google package signing key, the google repo and then tries to install google-chrome-stable. It has been working fine on many servers for the past 6 months until today when it just broke.

Here are steps to repro (on Ubuntu 12.04.2)

~$ wget -q -O - https://dl-ssl.google.com/linux/linux_signing_key.pub | sudo apt-key add
~$ echo deb http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable main | sudo tee /etc/apt/sources.list.d/google.list
~$ sudo apt-get update 
~$ sudo apt-get install -y google-chrome

The repo is the exact same key and repo that gets added when you manually install the .deb from google, I'm not sure why I can't install it without the following errors now coming up:

~$ sudo apt-get install -y google-chrome-stable 
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree       
Reading state information... Done
The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer required:
  libwmf0.2-7 libilmbase6 libcdt4 libpathplan4 libopenexr6 libdjvulibre21 libgraph4
  libdjvulibre-text
Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove them.
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  google-chrome-stable
0 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 46 not upgraded.
Need to get 41.9 MB of archives.
After this operation, 160 MB of additional disk space will be used.
WARNING: The following packages cannot be authenticated!
  google-chrome-stable
E: There are problems and -y was used without --force-yes

I'm aware that I can force the install but the point is - why has it changed? It used to not complain about this.

Sekm
  • 103
  • 4
  • **1**. I got just the "this package cannot be authenticated" message for the first time ever when I updated google-chrome-beta today on Lubuntu 13.04. The update went fine. But I didn't get any message about forcing the install. **2**. Why do you have "46 not upgraded"? –  Jun 13 '13 at 05:06
  • Hey, 1. good to know 2. Probably because I manually installed the .deb earlier and didn't `apt-get auto-remove` after I `dpkg -r`'ed it. – Sekm Jun 13 '13 at 05:09
  • 2
    Also see http://askubuntu.com/q/307563/25656 –  Jun 13 '13 at 05:10
  • Possible duplicate: ^^^ –  Jun 13 '13 at 05:37
  • 1
    I see, thanks for pointing me there, it points to a decent place to track the issue :) – Sekm Jun 13 '13 at 06:08
  • @Mitch, that's not actually relevant to this problem, which is that [the normal installation mechanism was broken](http://askubuntu.com/q/307563/1116). – poolie Jun 14 '13 at 03:28

0 Answers0