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

From: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Date: Dec 11, 2014, 16:54 UTC
Message-ID: <5489CC60.7080704@drmicha.warpmail.net>
In-Reply-To: <5489B90B.6070706@web.de>

Torsten Bögershausen schrieb am 11.12.2014 um 16:32:

Show 35 quoted lines

> 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.

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?

Michael