[PATCH] Update crypto test for gmime 2.6.5

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor]

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 unstable.  You can expect to see it on the
mirrors in the next day or so.

--dkg
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 965 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 

[PATCH] Update crypto test for gmime 2.6.5

[Tomi Ollila]

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
> when using gmime 2.6 (2.4 is fine).
> 
> The bug has been fixed in gmime 2.6.5. Consequently, the crypto test needs to 
> be
> adjusted so that it is only marked broken for gmime 2.6.4 and below.
> 
> [1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=668085
> ---
> 
> Hello world,
> 
> Here's a little update about gmime 2.6. The latest version (2.6.5)
> fixes the little regression introduced in 2.6.
> 
> In all honesty, I'm not sure adding such a workaround in the test
> suite is worth the effort. If gmime 2.6.5 is quickly packaged by major
> distros (it's already in Arch), we could as well make notmuch depend
> on gmime >= 2.6.5. (One line to change in configure). Or we could just
> stop trying to mark the test as broken and let it fail for buggy
> versions of gmime.
> 
> What do you think?

I'm in favor of gmime >= 2.6.5 requirement.

> 
> Best regards,
> Thomas

Tomi

Re: [PATCH] Update crypto test for gmime 2.6.5

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor]

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 unstable.  You can expect to see it on the
mirrors in the next day or so.

--dkg


pgpkU1cx5D7pB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch

[PATCH] Update crypto test for gmime 2.6.5

[Thomas Jost]

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 gmime 2.6.5. Consequently, the crypto test needs to be
adjusted so that it is only marked broken for gmime 2.6.4 and below.

[1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=668085
---

Hello world,

Here's a little update about gmime 2.6. The latest version (2.6.5)
fixes the little regression introduced in 2.6.

In all honesty, I'm not sure adding such a workaround in the test
suite is worth the effort. If gmime 2.6.5 is quickly packaged by major
distros (it's already in Arch), we could as well make notmuch depend
on gmime >= 2.6.5. (One line to change in configure). Or we could just
stop trying to mark the test as broken and let it fail for buggy
versions of gmime.

What do you think?

Best regards,
Thomas

 test/crypto |4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/test/crypto b/test/crypto
index 1dbb60a..cbab216 100755
--- a/test/crypto
+++ b/test/crypto
@@ -104,8 +104,8 @@ test_expect_equal \
 "$expected"

 test_begin_subtest "signature verification with signer key unavailable"
-# this is broken with current versions of gmime-2.6
-(ldd $(which notmuch) | grep -Fq gmime-2.6) && test_subtest_known_broken
+# this is broken with gmime-2.6.x for x <= 4
+ldd $(which notmuch) | grep -Fq gmime-2.6 && pkg-config --max-version=2.6.4 
gmime-2.6 && test_subtest_known_broken
 # move the gnupghome temporarily out of the way
 mv "${GNUPGHOME}"{,.bak}
 output=$(notmuch show --format=json --verify subject:"test signed message 001" 
\
-- 
1.7.9.1

[PATCH] Update crypto test for gmime 2.6.5

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor]

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

Re: [PATCH] Update crypto test for gmime 2.6.5

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor]

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
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch

Re: [PATCH] Update crypto test for gmime 2.6.5

[Tomi Ollila]

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
> when using gmime 2.6 (2.4 is fine).
> 
> The bug has been fixed in gmime 2.6.5. Consequently, the crypto test needs to 
> be
> adjusted so that it is only marked broken for gmime 2.6.4 and below.
> 
> [1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=668085
> ---
> 
> Hello world,
> 
> Here's a little update about gmime 2.6. The latest version (2.6.5)
> fixes the little regression introduced in 2.6.
> 
> In all honesty, I'm not sure adding such a workaround in the test
> suite is worth the effort. If gmime 2.6.5 is quickly packaged by major
> distros (it's already in Arch), we could as well make notmuch depend
> on gmime >= 2.6.5. (One line to change in configure). Or we could just
> stop trying to mark the test as broken and let it fail for buggy
> versions of gmime.
> 
> What do you think?

I'm in favor of gmime >= 2.6.5 requirement.

> 
> Best regards,
> Thomas

Tomi
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch

[PATCH] Update crypto test for gmime 2.6.5

[Thomas Jost]

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 gmime 2.6.5. Consequently, the crypto test needs to be
adjusted so that it is only marked broken for gmime 2.6.4 and below.

[1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=668085
---

Hello world,

Here's a little update about gmime 2.6. The latest version (2.6.5)
fixes the little regression introduced in 2.6.

In all honesty, I'm not sure adding such a workaround in the test
suite is worth the effort. If gmime 2.6.5 is quickly packaged by major
distros (it's already in Arch), we could as well make notmuch depend
on gmime >= 2.6.5. (One line to change in configure). Or we could just
stop trying to mark the test as broken and let it fail for buggy
versions of gmime.

What do you think?

Best regards,
Thomas

 test/crypto |4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/test/crypto b/test/crypto
index 1dbb60a..cbab216 100755
--- a/test/crypto
+++ b/test/crypto
@@ -104,8 +104,8 @@ test_expect_equal \
 "$expected"
 
 test_begin_subtest "signature verification with signer key unavailable"
-# this is broken with current versions of gmime-2.6
-(ldd $(which notmuch) | grep -Fq gmime-2.6) && test_subtest_known_broken
+# this is broken with gmime-2.6.x for x <= 4
+ldd $(which notmuch) | grep -Fq gmime-2.6 && pkg-config --max-version=2.6.4 
gmime-2.6 && test_subtest_known_broken
 # move the gnupghome temporarily out of the way
 mv "${GNUPGHOME}"{,.bak}
 output=$(notmuch show --format=json --verify subject:"test signed message 001" 
\
-- 
1.7.9.1

___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch