From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D8C6DE2227 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 04:19:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.005 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.005 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=disabled Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xMX_d6MIEIOy for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 04:19:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C04376DE21C1 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 04:19:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from remotemail by fethera.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cg9PT-00010x-RI; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 07:19:11 -0500 Received: (nullmailer pid 17068 invoked by uid 1000); Tue, 21 Feb 2017 12:19:47 -0000 From: David Bremner To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Cc: aidecode@aidecode.name Subject: Re: Proposed fix for test failures due to long socket paths In-Reply-To: <20170214214239.9330-1-david@tethera.net> References: <20170214214239.9330-1-david@tethera.net> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 08:19:47 -0400 Message-ID: <87y3wz4ty4.fsf@tethera.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 12:19:50 -0000 David Bremner writes: > Amadeusz =C5=BBo=C5=82nowski found a bug in the test suite that causes gpg > failures when the path of the test directory is sufficiently long. > His current solution in Gentoo is to move the sockets into /tmp. It > seems cleaner to enable gnupg's built in /run based short pathed > sockets. As far as I know the gpgconf option used here is available > in gnupg 2.1.13 and later. Amadeusz reported that the problem was > "fixed" in Gentoo by downgrading gnupg to 2.1.15. So while I'm not > 100% sure, it seems like a fix for very recent gnupg is all that is > required. Testing of these patches with older gpg would be > particularly welcome. Pushed the series (with Tomi's changes) to release and master d