Control: tag -1 + confirmed ftbfs Control: severity -1 serious On Sun, 29 Sep 2024 13:35:01 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> libgnupg-interface-perl FTBFS against gnupg 2.2.44:
> ----
> t/Fingerprint.t ............
> 1..2
> ok 1
> ok 2
> ok
> subkeys fail comparison; this is a known issue with GnuPG 1.0.1 at
> t/get_public_keys.t line 212.
> t/get_public_keys.t ........
> 1..3
> ok 1
> not ok 2
> not ok 3
> Failed 2/3 subtests
> t/get_secret_keys.t ........
> 1..2
> ok 1
> not ok 2
> Failed 1/2 subtests
> [...]
> t/list_secret_keys.t .......
> 1..4
> ok 1
> not ok 2
> ok 3
> ok 4
> Failed 1/4 subtests
> [...]
> Test Summary Report
> -------------------
> t/get_public_keys.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 3 Failed: 2)
> Failed tests: 2-3
> t/get_secret_keys.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 2 Failed: 1)
> Failed test: 2
> t/list_secret_keys.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 4 Failed: 1)
> Failed test: 2
> ----
>
> Reporting with priority normal instead of serious since I cannot
> complete rule out a gnupg issue.
I can confirm that the testsuite fails with 2.2.44 but succeeds with
2.2.43 in testing.
Looking around a bit I found
debian/patches/0007-Handle-versions-of-GnuPG-2.2.x-that-report-the-RENC-.patch
which touches the failing files, and if I comment it out in
d/p/series, the tests pass with 2.2.44 but then fail with 2.2.43.
In gnupg's NEWS I found
* gpg: Do not show RENC if no key capabilities are found for a key.
[rG1d91252205]
which may be related.
It looks like 0007-Handle-versions-of-GnuPG-2.2.x-that-report-the-RENC-.patch
needs some update to support both versions …
Cheers,
gregor
--
.''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org
: :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06
`. `' Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe
`-
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature
