gnupg-2.0.19 test failures on GNU/Linux Red Hat 5.8 IA-64 (Itanium)
W. Trevor King
wking at drexel.edu
Thu Apr 5 18:09:29 CEST 2012
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 09:46:39AM -0600, Nelson H. F. Beebe wrote:
> why do the encryption names prefix the PASS/FAIL reports?
> In my view, that makes it harder to scan the output for problems. I
> sometimes do 100 to 150 different builds of single packages in
> multiple O/S and compiler environments, so test-report clarity matters
> to me.
> I suggest that
> PASS: DES CAST5 BLOWFISH AES AES192 AES256 TWOFISH CAMELLIA128 CAMELLIA192 CAMELLIA256 conventional.test
> FAIL: 3DES conventional-mdc.test
> would be better.
The Git folks have a test suite that print TAP-formatted output :
ok 1 - Input file opened
not ok 2 - First line of the input valid
ok 3 - Read the rest of the file
not ok 4 - Summarized correctly # TODO Not written yet
If people want to change the test result format, you might as well use
a pre-existing specification ;).
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Gnupg-devel