GPGME 0.4.1 -- compile hassles

Marcus Brinkmann Marcus.Brinkmann at
Wed Jan 28 17:46:20 CET 2004

On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 03:29:35PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> Thanks for the answer.
> Note: I probably won't be able to test CVS in the near future.

Is that a problem of getting at the changes in CVS or something different? 
If it is the former, I could email you the patches.
> > > 	Fixing the hassles above all 15 tests fails with:
> > > 	t-encrypt.c:42: GPGME: Invalid crypto engine
> > 
> > It works just fine for me, of course.  So maybe there is a problem with your
> > configuration?  What is your GnuPG version?  1.2.2 is required.
> With 1.2.3rc1 all tests passed fine.


> The configuration output had confused me.
> It told me the path to gnupg and a minimum version number,
> so I was surprise that it did not check the minimum version number
> of that found executable.
> Wouldn't that we a good idea to check for the minium version
> number for gpg and gpgsm and issue a warning in the configuration step?

Well, yeah, it could do that.  But it can only be a warning because the
machine you compile GPGME on doesn't even need to have gpg or gpgsm
installed (unless you want to run the test suite).  But as I have to check
for running the test suite anyway, I can add a check.  The check would
disable the test suite if no suitable gpg is found.

> > > ps.: Please cc: me on relevant replies, I'm not subscribed to gnupg-devel at .
> > Mmh, maybe fix your Mail-Followup-To then :)
> Many people don't pay attentions to the mail-followup-to,
> thus I'd rather make it double sure.

I didn't mean to fix it instead having the extra note.  I was using your
header, and it was wrong because it was excluding you in the reply.  Now
it's better (although I prefer to CC every recipient at all times).


`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' GNU    marcus at
Marcus Brinkmann              The Hurd
Marcus.Brinkmann at

More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list