Hello :) ng0 <n...@we.make.ritual.n0.is> writes:
> While doing the update of gnupg from 2.1.13 to 2.1.14 I found out > that you now include a modified version of tinyscheme for running > your tests/opengpg/ tests. > > Are the changes you apply to tinyscheme generic enough to > contribute to upstream, so that we can just include a modified > tinyscheme software to run tests/opengpg/ tests during the check > phase of GnuPG? Yes they are, and I tried to push my changes upstream well before we merged the new test suite into our master branch. Sadly, my efforts were not successful. You can find the details in TinySCHEMEs mailing list archive. > If they aren't, could you move the gpgscm binary outside of the > source of gnupg to not include bundled dependencies, or in some > more convinient way for you? I consider bundling of gpgscm no worse than bundling scdaemon, or say gpgtar. The plan is to let it mature within the GnuPG repository, and once we are confident that it fits all our needs, we will move it to libgpg-error, and use it for other test suites too. > As there seems to be no general developer list for GnuPG I'll use > this list, we can move the discussion elsewhere if it does not > fit in here. There is gnupg-devel, see https://www.gnupg.org/documentation/mailing-lists.html. Cheers, Justus
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
