Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] gpg-interface t: extend the existing GPG tests with GPGSM

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jul 10, 2018, 17:16 UTC
Message-ID: <20180710171628.GC23438@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20180710170901.GH23624@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 01:09:01PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> > +		gpgsm --homedir "${GNUPGHOME}" --import "$TEST_DIRECTORY"/lib-gpg/gpgsm.crt.user &&
> > +		gpgsm --homedir "${GNUPGHOME}" -K | grep fingerprint: | cut -d" " -f4 | tr -d '\n' > ${GNUPGHOME}/trustlist.txt &&
> > +		echo " S relax" >> ${GNUPGHOME}/trustlist.txt &&
> > +		(gpgconf --kill gpg-agent >/dev/null 2>&1 || : ) &&
> > +		echo hello | gpgsm --homedir "${GNUPGHOME}" -u committer@example.com -o /dev/null --sign - 2>&1 &&
> > +		test_set_prereq GPGSM
> 
> This &&-chain means we can't have GPGSM without GPG. In theory the two
> could be tested independently. I don't know if it's worth the trouble to
> make that work, though. I wouldn't be surprised if there are some subtle
> dependencies within the test scripts, and I'm not sure how common it is
> for somebody to have gpgsm and not gpg. So it may make sense to just
> punt on it until such a person appears.

Oof, sorry, I thought I had read all of the v1 review, but I just noticed I missed a similar comment from brian. So it sounds like you already considered this, and just ignore what I wrote here.

-Peff