Re: [PATCH 1/1] skip RFC1991 tests with gnupg 2.1.x

[Christian Hesse <mail@eworm.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2284 bytes --]

Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> on Thu, 2014/12/11 17:54:
> 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.

Agreed. ;)

It's just six tests we have to disable. Everything else works just perfectly.

> 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?

GnuPG 2.0.x is still the official stable, 2.1.x is the "modern" branch. Looks
like the decision about whether or not 2.1.x will be stable has not been made
yet.

Though "official stable" is to be read as "absolutely rock solid stable"
IMHO. That is what enterprise distributions should use.
The modern branch is stable for daily use but has some experimental features.
Arch Linux for example already uses it [0], so stability can not be that
bad. ;)

However... Even if GnuPG 2.2.x (or whatever future release) will become next
stable: It will not reintroduce support for rfc1991. So applying my patch is
the way to go. (And version 2 of the patch even simplifies things and makes it
more generic.)

[0] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/?name=gnupg
-- 
Best Regards,
Chris

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]