Re: [PATCH 0/2] t/lib-gpg: a gpgsm fix, a minor improvement, and a question

From: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 12, 2019, 02:45 UTC
Message-ID: <20190212024501.GB1622@szeder.dev>
In-Reply-To: <20190212004433.GJ13301@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 07:44:33PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> On Sat, Feb 09, 2019 at 03:06:05PM +0100, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 10:17:44PM -0500, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> > > Looking through the build logs for the fedora git packages, I noticed it
> > > was missing the GPGSM prereq.
> > 
> > Just curious: how did you noticed the missing GPGSM prereq?
> > 
> > I'm asking because I use a patch for a good couple of months now that
> > collects the prereqs missed by test cases and prints them at the end
> > of 'make test'.  Its output looks like this:
> > 
> >   https://travis-ci.org/szeder/git/jobs/490944032#L2358

Show 5 quoted lines

> But it looks from the output like it just mentions every prereq that
> wasn't satisfied. I don't think that's particularly useful to show for
> all users, since most of them are platform things that cannot be changed
> (and you'd never get the list to zero, since some of them are mutually
> exclusive).

The idea was that people might notice when a new unmet prereq pops up all of a sudden, because they modified something on their setup, or because a new prereq was recently introduced, e.g. PERLJSON. Or they might notice that a prereq necessary to test a fundamental feature is missing on their setup that they haven't been aware of before, e.g. TTY.