From: Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi>
To: Thomas Jost <schnouki@schnouki.net>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Update crypto test for gmime 2.6.5
In-Reply-To: <1329840343-10026-1-git-send-email-schnouki@schnouki.net>
References: <1329840343-10026-1-git-send-email-schnouki@schnouki.net>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11.1+198~g922c4d2 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
	(x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:49:01 +0200
Message-ID: <m2obssyvwi.fsf@guru.guru-group.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Precedence: list

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:05:43 +0100, Thomas Jost <schnouki@schnouki.net> wrote:
> gmime 2.6 had a bug [1] which made it impossible to tell why a signature
> verification failed when the signer key was unavailable (empty "sigstatus" field
> in the JSON output). Since 00b5623d the corresponding test is marked as broken
> when using gmime 2.6 (2.4 is fine).
> 
> The bug has been fixed in gmime 2.6.5. Consequently, the crypto test needs to be
> adjusted so that it is only marked broken for gmime 2.6.4 and below.
> 
> [1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=668085
> ---
> 
> Hello world,
> 
> Here's a little update about gmime 2.6. The latest version (2.6.5)
> fixes the little regression introduced in 2.6.
> 
> In all honesty, I'm not sure adding such a workaround in the test
> suite is worth the effort. If gmime 2.6.5 is quickly packaged by major
> distros (it's already in Arch), we could as well make notmuch depend
> on gmime >= 2.6.5. (One line to change in configure). Or we could just
> stop trying to mark the test as broken and let it fail for buggy
> versions of gmime.
> 
> What do you think?

I'm in favor of gmime >= 2.6.5 requirement.

> 
> Best regards,
> Thomas

Tomi