[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [bug-recutils] [Platform-testers] Failed tests for upcoming 1.3.90 o
From: |
Dagobert Michelsen |
Subject: |
Re: [bug-recutils] [Platform-testers] Failed tests for upcoming 1.3.90 on Solaris 9 Sparc w/Sun Studio 12 |
Date: |
Tue, 1 Nov 2011 20:58:42 +0100 |
Hi Jose,
Am 01.11.2011 um 20:03 schrieb Jose E. Marchesi:
> Am 30.10.2011 um 14:29 schrieb Jose E. Marchesi:
>> The pre-release recutils-1.3.90.tar.gz is now available at
>> ftp://alpha.gnu.org/software/recutils. The NEWS file in the tarball
>> contains a list of the changes since 1.3.
>>
>> The planned date for releasing 1.4 is Wednesday 2 November 2011.
>>
>> Please report problems and build reports to address@hidden
>
> I have failed tests on Solaris 9 Sparc with Sun Studio 12:
>
> Many thanks for the report. It looks like that your platform is
> generating different encrypted values. This could be due to a bug in
> recutils or in libgcrypt (unlikely).
>
> Could you please run the following command line?
>
> echo -e "%rec: foo\n%confidential: bar\n\nbar: baz" | recfix --encrypt -s
> foo | recsel -t foo -s foo
>
> The result must be "bar: baz". If it is not then we are generating
> recfiles which can be shared between Solaris 9 and other platforms.
It is:
> unstable9s% cd utils/
> unstable9s% export PATH=$PATH:`pwd`
> unstable9s% echo -e "%rec: foo\n%confidential: bar\n\nbar: baz" | recfix
> --encrypt -s foo | recsel -t foo -s foo
> bar: baz
> BTW, what version of libgcrypt is used in that platform?
I have libgcrypt 1.5.0 installed:
common package catalog size
libgcrypt11 CSWlibgcrypt11 1.5.0,REV=2011.08.30 673.4 KB
libgcrypt_dev CSWlibgcrypt-dev 1.5.0,REV=2011.08.30 28.7 KB
libgcrypt_stub CSWgcrypt 1.5.0,REV=2011.08.30 7.8 KB
libgcrypt_utils CSWlibgcrypt-utils 1.5.0,REV=2011.08.30 95.1 KB
Best regards
-- Dago
--
"You don't become great by trying to be great, you become great by wanting to
do something,
and then doing it so hard that you become great in the process." - xkcd #896