Problems with updating to 2.9 on clean install

following the instructions here
linuxcnc.org/docs/devel/html/plasma/plas..._the_plasmac_add_ons

I did a clean install of the ISO
www.linuxcnc.org/testing-stretch-rtpreem...uspace-amd64-r13.iso

and I am trying to run

sudo apt-key adv --keyserver hkp://keys.gnupg.net --recv-key E0EE663E

I am getting

calvin@PlasmaCutter:/home/calvin# apt-key adv --keyserver hkp://keys.gnupg.net --recv-key E0EE663E
Executing: /tmp/apt-key-gpghome.Mo3XtW8llZ/gpg.1.sh --keyserver hkp://keys.gnupg.net --recv-key E0EE663E
gpg: keyserver receive failed: Server indicated a failure

I have tried updating the system, installing dirmngr, doing a clean install

anyone have any ideas ?

Thank You
Calvin

also trying to directly go to

keys.gnupg.net/ and testing E0EE663E

result in no key found

keys.gnupg.net/pks/lookup?search=E0EE663...gerprint=on&op=index

Oops, looks like a typo there. Try EF1B07FEE0EE663E as the key.

Edit: that was from buildbot.linuxcnc.org/ but it doesn't work here either keys.gnupg.net/pks/lookup?search=EF1B07F...gerprint=on&op=index ...

Edit 2: it seems to retrieve it though:

just did a cut and paste of your line

calvin@PlasmaCutter:~$ sudo apt-key adv --keyserver hkp://keys.gnupg.net --recv-key EF1B07FEE0EE663E
Executing: /tmp/apt-key-gpghome.2Atu0s4NLQ/gpg.1.sh --keyserver hkp://keys.gnupg.net --recv-key EF1B07FEE0EE663E
gpg: keyserver receive failed: Server indicated a failure

This is on a clean install
C

Actually the search does work with 0x prepended to E0EE663E (0xE0EE663E)

And I can retrieve the key as below: I have no idea why it does not work for you.

Does this help? forum.linuxcnc.org/9-installing-linuxcnc...22-keyserver-failure

yep, that did it

should we update the instructions here
linuxcnc.org/docs/devel/html/plasma/plas..._the_plasmac_add_ons

I was using a completely clean install based on the instruction, so other people might run into the same problem

Thank You
Calvin

Are you behind a firewall, from what I have read that can cause this issue.

It seems adding :80 won't hurt anything so it should go into the docs.

Yep, behind a firewall

but wouldn't most machines be ?

Maybe not all firewalls block port 11371. My firewall is a ISP provided router as would most I guess and it doesn't block any outgoing ports.