Re: RFS: sup-mail 0.12.1+git20120407.aaa852f-1
Excerpts from Cédric Boutillier's message of Sun May 13 14:49:41 -0700 2012:
> Hi Per,
>
> > The following packages are ready to be uploaded (I also verified the
> > points listed on
> > http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Ruby/RubyExtras/RequestingSponsorship).
>
> > Could you please sponsor them?
>
> > sup-mail 0.12.1+git20120407.aaa852f-1
>
> Thank you for taking care of sup-mail. I have successfully built the
> package. Lintian reports a few errors/warnings:
>
> I: sup-mail source: debian-watch-file-is-missing
> I: sup-mail: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man1/sup-recover-sources.1.gz:20
> I: sup-mail: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man1/sup-recover-sources.1.gz:25
>
> In the copyright file, the short name of a license should be just one
> word: maybe use "Ruby" instead of "Ruby License".
>
> I see you ignore the tests results. Have you investigated why they are
> failing? Maybe at least some should be included.
>
> It installs ok, but when I tried to launch it, it crashed immediately
> with the following error:
>
> --- NoMethodError from thread: main
> undefined method `set_engine_info' for GPGME:Module
> /usr/lib/ruby/vendor_ruby/sup/crypto.rb:68:in `initialize'
> /usr/lib/ruby/vendor_ruby/sup/util.rb:576:in `new'
> /usr/lib/ruby/vendor_ruby/sup/util.rb:576:in `init'
> /usr/lib/ruby/vendor_ruby/sup.rb:169:in `start'
> /usr/lib/ruby/vendor_ruby/sup.rb:169:in `each'
> /usr/lib/ruby/vendor_ruby/sup.rb:169:in `start'
> /usr/bin/sup-mail:164
>
> It is because it is not made to work with the version 2.0 of ruby-gpgme.
> Fortunately, there are some patches on gitorious solving this issue you may want to import:
>
> http://gitorious.org/sup/mainline/merge_requests/12
>
> I have not tried them, though. Maybe there is more nice stuff to import
> from there.
There are some issues with sending signed email, but for the most part
this patch works. I've been using it since November 26 with no other
problems... just fell off my radar to try and get it back into the Debian
package when it was basically ignored upstream.
Reply to: