Torsten Bögershausen schrieb am 11.12.2014 um 16:32: > On 11.12.14 10:30, Christian Hesse wrote: >> --- >> t/lib-gpg.sh | 6 ++++++ >> t/t7004-tag.sh | 14 +++++++------- >> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/t/lib-gpg.sh b/t/lib-gpg.sh >> index cd2baef..05b07c6 100755 >> --- a/t/lib-gpg.sh >> +++ b/t/lib-gpg.sh >> @@ -22,6 +22,12 @@ else >> GNUPGHOME="$(pwd)/gpghome" >> export GNUPGHOME >> test_set_prereq GPG >> + case "$gpg_version" in >> + 'gpg (GnuPG) 2.1.'*) >> + say "Your version of gpg (2.1.x) is missing some legacy >> features" >> + test_set_prereq GNUPG21 >> + ;; >> + esac >> ;; >> esac >> fi > We do not really need the GNUPG21 (and we don't need to touch the TC at all) > case "$gpg_version" in > 'gpg (GnuPG) 2.1.'*) > say "Your version of gpg (2.1.x) is missing some legacy > features" > ;; > *) > test_set_prereq GPG > ;; > > esac > ;; >
That would disable all GPG tests, which is pretty harsh. If gpg 2.1 is the future of gpg (which I don't know), which should rather prepare for that and make our tests independent of the version. Is gpg 2.1 stable enough to cater for its special needs? Michael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
