With #2274 and
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2269#issuecomment-1308825583,
the test is correctly skipped and all of the other tests pass:
```
471 tests behaved as expected.
76 tests were skipped.
Built target check
```
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on
The `rpmkeys type confusion` test was added in ec13083f46a1e to check that the
internal OpenPGP parser rejects a certificate with an invalid component. The
Sequoia backend happily accepts the certificate and ignores the invalid
component, which causes the test to fail. Mark the test as
Answering the question in #2272 here to keep things in context:
> Has the dust settled? As the sequoia backend will be the default in Fedora
> 38, is it time to use it in CI?
Getting warmer, but not there yet. There's just too many moving parts on too
many different fronts right now. Getting
1. rpmbuild --with=sbinsymlinks -bb test.spec
```
[root@localhost SPECS]# cat test.spec
%bcond_without sbinsymlinks
Name: test
Version: 1.0
Release: 1
License: MIT
Summary: Test
BuildArch: noarch
%description
Test
%prep
%build
%install
mkdir -p %{buildroot}/usr/sbin/
touch
> The test is much too strict. Using the Sequoia backend, this fails as follows:
>
> ```
> $ ./rpmkeys --import ./tests/testing/data/keys/type-confusion.asc
> warning: Certificate 4344591E1964C5FC:
> Policy rejects subkey 185E6146F00650F8: No binding signature at time
> 2022-11-09T15:08:19Z
>
This issue would have been caught if the Sequoia backend were tested in CI.
As per
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2065#issuecomment-123774:
> what I'm currently thinking is that once the dust settles a bit, we'll just
> switch the Sequoia to be the default on CI
The test is much too strict. Using the Sequoia backend, this fails as follows:
```
$ ./rpmkeys --import ./tests/testing/data/keys/type-confusion.asc
warning: Certificate 4344591E1964C5FC:
Policy rejects subkey 185E6146F00650F8: No binding signature at time
2022-11-09T15:08:19Z
```
--
Reply
When running the test suite (rpm-4.17.0-alpha-674-ge8e2a121b) using the sequoia
backend, I see the following failure:
```
$ make check
...
281: rpmkeys type confusion FAILED (rpmsigdig.at:631)
...
ERROR: 472 tests were run,
6 failed (5 expected failures).
75 tests were
That did the trick, thanks!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2269#issuecomment-1308900314
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Merged #1485 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1485#event-7774057590
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
@pmatilai approved this pull request.
Okay the spec parse stuff looks a whole lot nicer now - it actually looks like
an improvement.
I intended to do some more practical testing with this, but enough is enough
:sweat_smile:
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
I think the issue is with the unusual location, which the current cmake files
don't take into account, in which case this ought to help:
```
+++ b/rpmio/CMakeLists.txt
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ if (WITH_INTERNAL_OPENPGP)
endif()
else()
list(APPEND librpmio_SOURCES rpmpgp_sequoia.c)
-
Rebased on top of #2270 and squashed latest fixes.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1485#issuecomment-1308683146
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
@ffesti pushed 3 commits.
a1056d0b1487ee921db9de8d53bf693976e1f0b5 Split actual parsing of spec into its
own function
a2592627c300ddbe9af1632d0681391567213791 Allow starting new spec parts with
PART_EMPTY
26de93c844ee13d456542e867cf35a60e574c90b Add Dynamic Spec generation
--
View it on
Merged #2270 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2270#event-7772829149
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
OK, seems like all the comments are now addressed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1485#issuecomment-1308622418
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
> Added alternative error handling. Turns out to be less of a change than I
> expected. So it's probably just the way to go.
Yup, looks good.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1485#issuecomment-1308613037
You are receiving
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
5b4d7065b2f720dd098db92234f496ae59a03882 Dynamic Specs: Add order of specparts
reading
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1485/files/a2ec843b8dbc11ece43f057092b0f768931c933c..5b4d7065b2f720dd098db92234f496ae59a03882
You are
18 matches
Mail list logo
