{"thread":{"id":"38165","subject":"[PATCH 1/1] skip RFC1991 tests with gnupg 2.1.x","startedAt":"2014-12-11T09:30:34Z","lastAt":"2014-12-12T16:00:41Z","messageCount":8,"participants":["Christian Hesse","Torsten Bögershausen","Michael J Gruber","Junio C Hamano"],"isPatch":true,"patchVersion":1,"patchTotal":1},"messages":[{"id":"253561","messageId":"1418290234-21516-1-git-send-email-mail@eworm.de","threadId":"38165","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"[PATCH 1/1] skip RFC1991 tests with gnupg 2.1.x","fromName":"Christian Hesse","fromEmail":"mail@eworm.de","sentAt":"2014-12-11T09:30:34Z","receivedAt":"2014-12-11T09:30:34Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"mail@eworm.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/970853?v=4"},"body":"---\n t/lib-gpg.sh   |  6 ++++++\n t/t7004-tag.sh | 14 +++++++-------\n 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)\n\ndiff --git a/t/lib-gpg.sh b/t/lib-gpg.sh\nindex cd2baef..05b07c6 100755\n--- a/t/lib-gpg.sh\n+++ b/t/lib-gpg.sh\n@@ -22,6 +22,12 @@ else\n \t\tGNUPGHOME=\"$(pwd)/gpghome\"\n \t\texport GNUPGHOME\n \t\ttest_set_prereq GPG\n+\t\tcase \"$gpg_version\" in\n+\t\t'gpg (GnuPG) 2.1.'*)\n+\t\t\tsay \"Your version of gpg (2.1.x) is missing some legacy features\"\n+\t\t\ttest_set_prereq GNUPG21\n+\t\t\t;;\n+\t\tesac\n \t\t;;\n \tesac\n fi\ndiff --git a/t/t7004-tag.sh b/t/t7004-tag.sh\nindex 796e9f7..1c40967 100755\n--- a/t/t7004-tag.sh\n+++ b/t/t7004-tag.sh\n@@ -1081,7 +1081,7 @@ test_expect_success GPG \\\n get_tag_header rfc1991-signed-tag $commit commit $time >expect\n echo \"RFC1991 signed tag\" >>expect\n echo '-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----' >>expect\n-test_expect_success GPG \\\n+test_expect_success GPG,!GNUPG21 \\\n \t'creating a signed tag with rfc1991' '\n \techo \"rfc1991\" >gpghome/gpg.conf &&\n \tgit tag -s -m \"RFC1991 signed tag\" rfc1991-signed-tag $commit &&\n@@ -1095,7 +1095,7 @@ cp \"$1\" actual\n EOF\n chmod +x fakeeditor\n \n-test_expect_success GPG \\\n+test_expect_success GPG,!GNUPG21 \\\n \t'reediting a signed tag body omits signature' '\n \techo \"rfc1991\" >gpghome/gpg.conf &&\n \techo \"RFC1991 signed tag\" >expect &&\n@@ -1103,13 +1103,13 @@ test_expect_success GPG \\\n \ttest_cmp expect actual\n '\n \n-test_expect_success GPG \\\n+test_expect_success GPG,!GNUPG21 \\\n \t'verifying rfc1991 signature' '\n \techo \"rfc1991\" >gpghome/gpg.conf &&\n \tgit tag -v rfc1991-signed-tag\n '\n \n-test_expect_success GPG \\\n+test_expect_success GPG,!GNUPG21 \\\n \t'list tag with rfc1991 signature' '\n \techo \"rfc1991\" >gpghome/gpg.conf &&\n \techo \"rfc1991-signed-tag RFC1991 signed tag\" >expect &&\n@@ -1123,12 +1123,12 @@ test_expect_success GPG \\\n \n rm -f gpghome/gpg.conf\n \n-test_expect_success GPG \\\n+test_expect_success GPG,!GNUPG21 \\\n \t'verifying rfc1991 signature without --rfc1991' '\n \tgit tag -v rfc1991-signed-tag\n '\n \n-test_expect_success GPG \\\n+test_expect_success GPG,!GNUPG21 \\\n \t'list tag with rfc1991 signature without --rfc1991' '\n \techo \"rfc1991-signed-tag RFC1991 signed tag\" >expect &&\n \tgit tag -l -n1 rfc1991-signed-tag >actual &&\n@@ -1139,7 +1139,7 @@ test_expect_success GPG \\\n \ttest_cmp expect actual\n '\n \n-test_expect_success GPG \\\n+test_expect_success GPG,!GNUPG21 \\\n \t'reediting a signed tag body omits signature' '\n \techo \"RFC1991 signed tag\" >expect &&\n \tGIT_EDITOR=./fakeeditor git tag -f -s rfc1991-signed-tag $commit &&\n-- \n2.1.3\n"},{"id":"253569","messageId":"5489B90B.6070706@web.de","threadId":"38165","inReplyTo":"1418290234-21516-1-git-send-email-mail@eworm.de","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/1] skip RFC1991 tests with gnupg 2.1.x","fromName":"Torsten Bögershausen","fromEmail":"tboegi@web.de","sentAt":"2014-12-11T15:32:27Z","receivedAt":"2014-12-11T15:32:27Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"tboegi@web.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/7138363?v=4"},"body":"On 11.12.14 10:30, Christian Hesse wrote:\n> ---\n>  t/lib-gpg.sh   |  6 ++++++\n>  t/t7004-tag.sh | 14 +++++++-------\n>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)\n> \n> diff --git a/t/lib-gpg.sh b/t/lib-gpg.sh\n> index cd2baef..05b07c6 100755\n> --- a/t/lib-gpg.sh\n> +++ b/t/lib-gpg.sh\n> @@ -22,6 +22,12 @@ else\n>  \t\tGNUPGHOME=\"$(pwd)/gpghome\"\n>  \t\texport GNUPGHOME\n>  \t\ttest_set_prereq GPG\n> +\t\tcase \"$gpg_version\" in\n> +\t\t'gpg (GnuPG) 2.1.'*)\n> +\t\t\tsay \"Your version of gpg (2.1.x) is missing some legacy features\"\n> +\t\t\ttest_set_prereq GNUPG21\n> +\t\t\t;;\n> +\t\tesac\n>  \t\t;;\n>  \tesac\n>  fi\nWe do not really need the GNUPG21 (and we don't need to touch the TC at all)\n\t\tcase \"$gpg_version\" in\n\t\t'gpg (GnuPG) 2.1.'*)\n\t\t\tsay \"Your version of gpg (2.1.x) is missing some legacy features\"\n\t\t\t;;\n\t\t*)\n\t\t\ttest_set_prereq GPG\n\t\t\t;;\n\n\t\tesac\n  \t\t;;\n"},{"id":"253572","messageId":"5489CC60.7080704@drmicha.warpmail.net","threadId":"38165","inReplyTo":"5489B90B.6070706@web.de","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/1] skip RFC1991 tests with gnupg 2.1.x","fromName":"Michael J Gruber","fromEmail":"git@drmicha.warpmail.net","sentAt":"2014-12-11T16:54:56Z","receivedAt":"2014-12-11T16:54:56Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"git@grubix.eu","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/233215?v=4"},"body":"Torsten Bögershausen schrieb am 11.12.2014 um 16:32:\n> On 11.12.14 10:30, Christian Hesse wrote:\n>> ---\n>>  t/lib-gpg.sh   |  6 ++++++\n>>  t/t7004-tag.sh | 14 +++++++-------\n>>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)\n>>\n>> diff --git a/t/lib-gpg.sh b/t/lib-gpg.sh\n>> index cd2baef..05b07c6 100755\n>> --- a/t/lib-gpg.sh\n>> +++ b/t/lib-gpg.sh\n>> @@ -22,6 +22,12 @@ else\n>>  \t\tGNUPGHOME=\"$(pwd)/gpghome\"\n>>  \t\texport GNUPGHOME\n>>  \t\ttest_set_prereq GPG\n>> +\t\tcase \"$gpg_version\" in\n>> +\t\t'gpg (GnuPG) 2.1.'*)\n>> +\t\t\tsay \"Your version of gpg (2.1.x) is missing some legacy features\"\n>> +\t\t\ttest_set_prereq GNUPG21\n>> +\t\t\t;;\n>> +\t\tesac\n>>  \t\t;;\n>>  \tesac\n>>  fi\n> We do not really need the GNUPG21 (and we don't need to touch the TC at all)\n> \t\tcase \"$gpg_version\" in\n> \t\t'gpg (GnuPG) 2.1.'*)\n> \t\t\tsay \"Your version of gpg (2.1.x) is missing some legacy features\"\n> \t\t\t;;\n> \t\t*)\n> \t\t\ttest_set_prereq GPG\n> \t\t\t;;\n> \n> \t\tesac\n>   \t\t;;\n> \n\nThat would disable all GPG tests, which is pretty harsh.\n\nIf gpg 2.1 is the future of gpg (which I don't know), which should\nrather prepare for that and make our tests independent of the version.\nIs gpg 2.1 stable enough to cater for its special needs?\n\nMichael\n"},{"id":"253588","messageId":"20141211234405.3513d5d7@leda.localdomain","threadId":"38165","inReplyTo":"5489CC60.7080704@drmicha.warpmail.net","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/1] skip RFC1991 tests with gnupg 2.1.x","fromName":"Christian Hesse","fromEmail":"mail@eworm.de","sentAt":"2014-12-11T22:44:05Z","receivedAt":"2014-12-11T22:44:05Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"mail@eworm.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/970853?v=4"},"body":"Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> on Thu, 2014/12/11 17:54:\n> Torsten Bögershausen schrieb am 11.12.2014 um 16:32:\n> > On 11.12.14 10:30, Christian Hesse wrote:\n> >> ---\n> >>  t/lib-gpg.sh   |  6 ++++++\n> >>  t/t7004-tag.sh | 14 +++++++-------\n> >>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)\n> >>\n> >> diff --git a/t/lib-gpg.sh b/t/lib-gpg.sh\n> >> index cd2baef..05b07c6 100755\n> >> --- a/t/lib-gpg.sh\n> >> +++ b/t/lib-gpg.sh\n> >> @@ -22,6 +22,12 @@ else\n> >>  \t\tGNUPGHOME=\"$(pwd)/gpghome\"\n> >>  \t\texport GNUPGHOME\n> >>  \t\ttest_set_prereq GPG\n> >> +\t\tcase \"$gpg_version\" in\n> >> +\t\t'gpg (GnuPG) 2.1.'*)\n> >> +\t\t\tsay \"Your version of gpg (2.1.x) is missing\n> >> some legacy features\"\n> >> +\t\t\ttest_set_prereq GNUPG21\n> >> +\t\t\t;;\n> >> +\t\tesac\n> >>  \t\t;;\n> >>  \tesac\n> >>  fi\n> > We do not really need the GNUPG21 (and we don't need to touch the TC at\n> > all) case \"$gpg_version\" in\n> > \t\t'gpg (GnuPG) 2.1.'*)\n> > \t\t\tsay \"Your version of gpg (2.1.x) is missing some\n> > legacy features\" ;;\n> > \t\t*)\n> > \t\t\ttest_set_prereq GPG\n> > \t\t\t;;\n> > \n> > \t\tesac\n> >   \t\t;;\n> > \n> \n> That would disable all GPG tests, which is pretty harsh.\n\nAgreed. ;)\n\nIt's just six tests we have to disable. Everything else works just perfectly.\n\n> If gpg 2.1 is the future of gpg (which I don't know), which should\n> rather prepare for that and make our tests independent of the version.\n> Is gpg 2.1 stable enough to cater for its special needs?\n\nGnuPG 2.0.x is still the official stable, 2.1.x is the \"modern\" branch. Looks\nlike the decision about whether or not 2.1.x will be stable has not been made\nyet.\n\nThough \"official stable\" is to be read as \"absolutely rock solid stable\"\nIMHO. That is what enterprise distributions should use.\nThe modern branch is stable for daily use but has some experimental features.\nArch Linux for example already uses it [0], so stability can not be that\nbad. ;)\n\nHowever... Even if GnuPG 2.2.x (or whatever future release) will become next\nstable: It will not reintroduce support for rfc1991. So applying my patch is\nthe way to go. (And version 2 of the patch even simplifies things and makes it\nmore generic.)\n\n[0] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/?name=gnupg\n-- \nBest Regards,\nChris\n"},{"id":"253590","messageId":"xmqqegs5dbqu.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com","threadId":"38165","inReplyTo":"20141211234405.3513d5d7@leda.localdomain","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/1] skip RFC1991 tests with gnupg 2.1.x","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2014-12-11T23:10:01Z","receivedAt":"2014-12-11T23:10:01Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Christian Hesse <mail@eworm.de> writes:\n\n> However... Even if GnuPG 2.2.x (or whatever future release) will become next\n> stable: It will not reintroduce support for rfc1991.\n\nHow certain are we about the deprecation?\n\nIt also would make us feel safer if we did not have to depend on the\nversion or keyfile format (which would not have anything to do with\nthe decision to support or not to support rfc1991 format) to check\nif the feature is supported, but that is a separate issue.\n"},{"id":"253599","messageId":"20141212093543.5175e7a5@leda.localdomain","threadId":"38165","inReplyTo":"xmqqegs5dbqu.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/1] skip RFC1991 tests with gnupg 2.1.x","fromName":"Christian Hesse","fromEmail":"mail@eworm.de","sentAt":"2014-12-12T08:35:43Z","receivedAt":"2014-12-12T08:35:43Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"mail@eworm.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/970853?v=4"},"body":"Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> on Thu, 2014/12/11 15:10:\n> Christian Hesse <mail@eworm.de> writes:\n> \n> > However... Even if GnuPG 2.2.x (or whatever future release) will become\n> > next stable: It will not reintroduce support for rfc1991.\n> \n> How certain are we about the deprecation?\n\nThe sixth beta of GnuPG [0] had this change:\n\n * gpg: Removed the option --pgp2 and --rfc1991 and the ability to\n   create PGP-2 compatible messages.\n\n> It also would make us feel safer if we did not have to depend on the\n> version or keyfile format (which would not have anything to do with\n> the decision to support or not to support rfc1991 format) to check\n> if the feature is supported, but that is a separate issue.\n\nChanged in next version.\n\n[0] http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-announce/2014q3/000354.html\n-- \nBest regards,\nChris\n"},{"id":"253634","messageId":"20141212105444.50adca35@leda.localdomain","threadId":"38165","inReplyTo":"20141212093543.5175e7a5@leda.localdomain","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/1] skip RFC1991 tests with gnupg 2.1.x","fromName":"Christian Hesse","fromEmail":"mail@eworm.de","sentAt":"2014-12-12T09:54:44Z","receivedAt":"2014-12-12T09:54:44Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"mail@eworm.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/970853?v=4"},"body":"Christian Hesse <mail@eworm.de> on Fri, 2014/12/12 09:35:\n> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> on Thu, 2014/12/11 15:10:\n> > Christian Hesse <mail@eworm.de> writes:\n> >   \n> > > However... Even if GnuPG 2.2.x (or whatever future release) will become\n> > > next stable: It will not reintroduce support for rfc1991.  \n> > \n> > How certain are we about the deprecation?  \n> \n> The sixth beta of GnuPG [0] had this change:\n> \n>  * gpg: Removed the option --pgp2 and --rfc1991 and the ability to\n>    create PGP-2 compatible messages.\n\nThis is the corresponding commit:\n\nhttp://git.gnupg.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=gnupg.git;a=commit;h=2b8d8369d59249b89526c18c5ac276e6445dc35e\n-- \nBest regards,\nChris\n"},{"id":"253636","messageId":"548B1129.80202@drmicha.warpmail.net","threadId":"38165","inReplyTo":"20141212105444.50adca35@leda.localdomain","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/1] skip RFC1991 tests with gnupg 2.1.x","fromName":"Michael J Gruber","fromEmail":"git@drmicha.warpmail.net","sentAt":"2014-12-12T16:00:41Z","receivedAt":"2014-12-12T16:00:41Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"git@grubix.eu","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/233215?v=4"},"body":"Christian Hesse schrieb am 12.12.2014 um 10:54:\n> Christian Hesse <mail@eworm.de> on Fri, 2014/12/12 09:35:\n>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> on Thu, 2014/12/11 15:10:\n>>> Christian Hesse <mail@eworm.de> writes:\n>>>   \n>>>> However... Even if GnuPG 2.2.x (or whatever future release) will become\n>>>> next stable: It will not reintroduce support for rfc1991.  \n>>>\n>>> How certain are we about the deprecation?  \n>>\n>> The sixth beta of GnuPG [0] had this change:\n>>\n>>  * gpg: Removed the option --pgp2 and --rfc1991 and the ability to\n>>    create PGP-2 compatible messages.\n> \n> This is the corresponding commit:\n> \n> http://git.gnupg.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=gnupg.git;a=commit;h=2b8d8369d59249b89526c18c5ac276e6445dc35e\n> \n\nSo, in fact, gpg2.1 removes support for creating pgp2 (rfc1991)\nsignatures only. That is: We could put an armor exported signature\ninto our test suite, test verification against that signature,\nand restrict the test for creation of that signature by gpg version (or\nskip it completely).\n\nMichael\n"}]}