On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:45:06 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 02/21/2012 11:49 AM, Tomi Ollila wrote:
> > I'm in favor of gmime >= 2.6.5 requirement.
>
> I tend to agree with Tomi here. I'm going to work on getting gmime
> 2.6.5 into debian later today.
gmime 2.6.6 is now in debian
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:05:43 +0100, Thomas Jost
wrote:
> gmime 2.6 had a bug [1] which made it impossible to tell why a signature
> verification failed when the signer key was unavailable (empty "sigstatus"
> field
> in the JSON output). Since 00b5623d the corresponding test is marked as broken
On 02/21/2012 11:49 AM, Tomi Ollila wrote:
> I'm in favor of gmime >= 2.6.5 requirement.
I tend to agree with Tomi here. I'm going to work on getting gmime
2.6.5 into debian later today.
--dkg
gmime 2.6 had a bug [1] which made it impossible to tell why a signature
verification failed when the signer key was unavailable (empty sigstatus field
in the JSON output). Since 00b5623d the corresponding test is marked as broken
when using gmime 2.6 (2.4 is fine).
The bug has been fixed in
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:05:43 +0100, Thomas Jost schno...@schnouki.net wrote:
gmime 2.6 had a bug [1] which made it impossible to tell why a signature
verification failed when the signer key was unavailable (empty sigstatus
field
in the JSON output). Since 00b5623d the corresponding test is
On 02/21/2012 11:49 AM, Tomi Ollila wrote:
I'm in favor of gmime = 2.6.5 requirement.
I tend to agree with Tomi here. I'm going to work on getting gmime
2.6.5 into debian later today.
--dkg
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:45:06 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote:
On 02/21/2012 11:49 AM, Tomi Ollila wrote:
I'm in favor of gmime = 2.6.5 requirement.
I tend to agree with Tomi here. I'm going to work on getting gmime
2.6.5 into debian later today.
gmime 2.6.6 is now
