[rt-users] Problem RTIR Installation -- CPAN's GnuPG::Interface tests failing

[Behzad Mahini]

Ok, I made the umask to be strict on the entire 'test' directory  
(recursively), and ran the "make test", and then "prove -lbv  
failing_cases "....and some of the warnings/errors went away. However,  
there are still some more errors left (See Results shown below).

Since some of these errors (See Results below) are indicating that  
they are known issues with GnuPG 1.0.1, it begs the following questions:

	1) What is the significance of the term "...known issues with GnuPG  
1.0.1..." (i.e., known to RT developers? or known to the GnuPG  
developers?)

	2) I have installed GnuPG 2.0.13, and do not have GnuPG 1.xx  
installed on my machine. Therefore why is it complaining about GnuPG  
1.0.1? Again, note 			that I have only created a symbolic link for the  
executable "gpg"  (supposedly the executable for GnuPG 1.x) to point  
to "gpg2" (GnuPG 2.0.13). I only did 		this as "perl Malefile.PL" for  
CPAN's GnuPG-Interface would not have gone ahead, as it obviously  
needed "gpg".


Results of  "make test"
=================
/usr/local/.cpan/build/GnuPG-Interface-0.40_04
sh-3.2# make test
PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e"  
"test_harness(0, 'inc', 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/*.t
t/clearsign.t .............. ok
t/decrypt.t ................ ok
t/detach_sign.t ............ ok
t/encrypt.t ................ ok
t/encrypt_symmetrically.t .. ok
t/export_keys.t ............ ok
t/Fingerprint.t ............ ok
t/get_public_keys.t ........ 1/3 subkeys fail comparison; this is a  
known issue with GnuPG 1.0.1 at t/get_public_keys.t line 92.
t/get_public_keys.t ........ Failed 3/3 subtests
t/get_secret_keys.t ........ Failed 2/2 subtests
t/import_keys.t ............ ok
t/Interface.t .............. ok
t/list_public_keys.t ....... ok
t/list_secret_keys.t ....... ok
t/list_sigs.t .............. ok
t/passphrase_handling.t .... ok
t/sign.t ................... ok
t/sign_and_encrypt.t ....... ok
t/UserId.t ................. ok
t/verify.t ................. ok
t/wrap_call.t .............. ok

Test Summary Report
-------------------
t/get_public_keys.t      (Wstat: 0 Tests: 3 Failed: 3)
   Failed tests:  1-3
t/get_secret_keys.t      (Wstat: 0 Tests: 2 Failed: 2)
   Failed tests:  1-2
Files=20, Tests=51,  2 wallclock secs ( 0.07 usr  0.06 sys +  1.47  
cusr  0.43 csys =  2.03 CPU)
Result: FAIL
Failed 2/20 test programs. 5/51 subtests failed.
make: *** [test_dynamic] Error 255
sh-3.2#
sh-3.2#
sh-3.2#
sh-3.2# prove -lbv t/get_public_keys.t
t/get_public_keys.t ..
1..3
not ok 1
not ok 2
not ok 3
subkeys fail comparison; this is a known issue with GnuPG 1.0.1 at t/ 
get_public_keys.t line 92.
Failed 3/3 subtests

Test Summary Report
-------------------
t/get_public_keys.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 3 Failed: 3)
   Failed tests:  1-3
Files=1, Tests=3,  0 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr  0.01 sys +  0.07 cusr   
0.02 csys =  0.12 CPU)
Result: FAIL



sh-3.2# prove -lbv t/get_secret_keys.t
t/get_secret_keys.t ..
1..2
not ok 1
not ok 2
Failed 2/2 subtests

Test Summary Report
-------------------
t/get_secret_keys.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 2 Failed: 2)
   Failed tests:  1-2
Files=1, Tests=2,  0 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr  0.01 sys +  0.07 cusr   
0.01 csys =  0.11 CPU)
Result: FAIL
sh-3.2#

=====


-Behzad
On Sep 23, 2009, at 6:11 AM, Ruslan Zakirov wrote:

> May be setting umask to a stricter value will make all those tests  
> pass.
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Jesse Vincent <jesse at bestpractical.com 
> > wrote:
>>
>>> $ sudo prove -blv t/get_public_keys.t
>>> t/get_public_keys.t ..
>>> 1..3
>>> gpg: WARNING: unsafe permissions on homedir `test'
>>> not ok 1
>>> not ok 2
>>> not ok 3
>>> subkeys fail comparison; this is a known issue with GnuPG 1.0.1 at  
>>> t/
>>> get_public_keys.t line 92.
>>> Failed 3/3 subtests
>>>
>>> Test Summary Report
>>
>> Can you try to track down the source of that gpg warning? I suspect  
>> that
>> it might be umask related. It may be that GnuPG 2.0 is being stricter
>> about something for homedir permissions.
>> _______________________________________________
>> http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
>>
>> Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com
>> Commercial support: sales at bestpractical.com
>>
>>
>> Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media.
>> Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Best regards, Ruslan.