1 Return-Path: <tomi.ollila@iki.fi>
\r
2 X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
3 Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
4 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
\r
5 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74AB9431FAF
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:49:04 -0800 (PST)
\r
7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
\r
11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[none]
\r
13 Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
\r
14 by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
\r
15 with ESMTP id JLlcpVrtdDNj for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
16 Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:49:00 -0800 (PST)
\r
17 Received: from guru.guru-group.fi (guru-group.fi [87.108.86.66])
\r
18 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9890B431FAE
\r
19 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:49:00 -0800 (PST)
\r
20 Received: by guru.guru-group.fi (Postfix, from userid 501)
\r
21 id 358C368055; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:49:01 +0200 (EET)
\r
22 From: Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi>
\r
23 To: Thomas Jost <schnouki@schnouki.net>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
24 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Update crypto test for gmime 2.6.5
\r
25 In-Reply-To: <1329840343-10026-1-git-send-email-schnouki@schnouki.net>
\r
26 References: <1329840343-10026-1-git-send-email-schnouki@schnouki.net>
\r
27 User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11.1+198~g922c4d2 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
\r
28 (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
\r
29 X-Face: HhBM'cA~<r"^Xv\KRN0P{vn'Y"Kd;zg_y3S[4)KSN~s?O\"QPoL
\r
30 $[Xv_BD:i/F$WiEWax}R(MPS`^UaptOGD`*/=@\1lKoVa9tnrg0TW?"r7aRtgk[F
\r
31 !)g;OY^,BjTbr)Np:%c_o'jj,Z
\r
32 Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:49:01 +0200
\r
33 Message-ID: <m2obssyvwi.fsf@guru.guru-group.fi>
\r
35 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
\r
36 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
37 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
39 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
40 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
41 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
42 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
43 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
44 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
45 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
46 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
47 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
48 X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:49:04 -0000
\r
50 On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:05:43 +0100, Thomas Jost <schnouki@schnouki.net> wrote:
\r
51 > gmime 2.6 had a bug [1] which made it impossible to tell why a signature
\r
52 > verification failed when the signer key was unavailable (empty "sigstatus" field
\r
53 > in the JSON output). Since 00b5623d the corresponding test is marked as broken
\r
54 > when using gmime 2.6 (2.4 is fine).
\r
56 > The bug has been fixed in gmime 2.6.5. Consequently, the crypto test needs to be
\r
57 > adjusted so that it is only marked broken for gmime 2.6.4 and below.
\r
59 > [1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=668085
\r
64 > Here's a little update about gmime 2.6. The latest version (2.6.5)
\r
65 > fixes the little regression introduced in 2.6.
\r
67 > In all honesty, I'm not sure adding such a workaround in the test
\r
68 > suite is worth the effort. If gmime 2.6.5 is quickly packaged by major
\r
69 > distros (it's already in Arch), we could as well make notmuch depend
\r
70 > on gmime >= 2.6.5. (One line to change in configure). Or we could just
\r
71 > stop trying to mark the test as broken and let it fail for buggy
\r
72 > versions of gmime.
\r
74 > What do you think?
\r
76 I'm in favor of gmime >= 2.6.5 requirement.
\r
projects / notmuch-archives.git / blob