From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Sep 29 19:00:01 2019 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Sep 2019 23:00:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56080 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iEiAb-0005tJ-51 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 19:00:01 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:44672) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iEiAY-0005tA-PC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 18:59:59 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39690) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iEiAX-0005Bw-3X for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 18:59:58 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iEiAV-00076p-Iz for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 18:59:56 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-x82c.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::82c]:33252) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iEiAV-00076Z-Av for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 18:59:55 -0400 Received: by mail-qt1-x82c.google.com with SMTP id r5so14650040qtd.0 for ; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 15:59:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=rzKS8IYmlTv9CuQWD39f5QzGEcpz13+gSspwi3lKKI8=; b=Q6Gv/nbcJ7OVio8ly1w3LVspvWdfO2dbet/PkW0LCHCAR7ca4p38MSkf2f+7n3Kqpw BcN1D7kBH8OgsCftO6RW7Nmv/ncDvju+pfgWH1JgPdmNKIl3o1o82bECRsNBO8njX9iz VX9AQwMY547vXI5EozZbDOK8IiiYuqu2yid5r5wb8Qkn/YhiZX4HsIYPWWcMCXxFMtSJ 0C5hnz3NunxBryxwcRqJ7gO9Kvgt8oPAk83sT47k44LXEnQSK9+g7fnbmVeGJIRfimCK 7LC3YA1mxIcpE2kbuqUM1k5JUMqpm6s2bEYOgJvsSID8PDMC4n4fESOYMWS+tI08pgCr SIuw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=rzKS8IYmlTv9CuQWD39f5QzGEcpz13+gSspwi3lKKI8=; b=iANg/UCg1GxwFp37uNew7rZ5WTPLqm0I8UsR4JEVDM9bPneAhyHx3nmIiV4Ye+ReWn Hnp4tMhwwwkEuHKwSd/MrIxCQvwjYzTnZmlaliWqll9vvttwJuMchoYyBX1MPzk/Wy3d lEo6/p1NcxefPXzGcZY1N06x0qH5xB4nx4Da6DDl4TMsghWI9IvX86oBI/CWWCvuq2UG 8qAuoYsLKMuZ9zRW+NuHaMabKGSlAAtoVsBavoeDBSzc7Og0ox2wv8oM60QetGNT79xM jJfvY6+trRqbZZGf92fTBUTOD+ETbbRK8dQvi7OrGjhgPejNYtWosHgyX+X03RqCxFDc SbnQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWRl8JsIRF51VCQRZgGL4Fg3dBiwZc6f7E28shH0IUeXq9cJqFD Q8r+QnVrrhDkYCBOUYGXrF+rvtl+3Dcfqnedr6odrzob X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyQ5NUevdHvtPaUc5EtKeI/XiFmtBjTy7v3ql4JE63meUtfnLZ58U1RYRCqwY3ON75bWNonUY/jwlOxWTnTVhM= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:70c:: with SMTP id b12mr18004819qvz.87.1569797994247; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 15:59:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Juanma Barranquero Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 00:59:18 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: gpg "-unknown" version string To: Bug-Gnu-Emacs Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d0f9fc0593b913cc" X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4864:20::82c X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) --000000000000d0f9fc0593b913cc Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Package: emacs Version: 27.0.50 X-Debbugs-Cc: larsi@gnus.org This is related to bug# 35629. This commit commit 42ba6200af10c00c72ac13912d6fb42a7af88058 Author: Lars Ingebrigtsen Date: 2019-08-26 08:02:31 +0200 Allow finding gpg2 binaries when gpg2 has an "unknown" version string * lisp/epg-config.el (epg-find-configuration): Allow finding a usable configuration even if the version string looks like "gpg (GnuPG) 2.2.15-unknown" (bug#35629). fixes one function, but there are other uses of version-related functions in epg, for example (defun epg-required-version-p (protocol required-version) "Verify a sufficient version of GnuPG for specific protocol. PROTOCOL is symbol, either `OpenPGP' or `CMS'. REQUIRED-VERSION is a string containing the required version number. Return non-nil if that version or higher is installed." (let ((version (cdr (assq 'version (epg-find-configuration protocol))))) (and (stringp version) (version<= required-version version)))) which calls epg-find-configuration (which is protected by the above change), and then version<= (which fails). This makes epg-tests.el fail on my gpg, from MSYS2: $ gpg --version gpg (GnuPG) 2.2.17-unknown libgcrypt 1.8.4 Fixing this with another let binding around `version<=' is trivial, but it is a kludge. I think it makes more sense just adding "-unknown" to the formats recognized by default with version-regexp-alist. (Note: after working around this bug, epg tests still fail for me, but for unrelated reasons.) --000000000000d0f9fc0593b913cc Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Package: emacs
Version: 27.0.50
X= -Debbugs-Cc:=C2=A0larsi@gnus.org



This is related to bug# 35629= .

This commit

=C2=A0 =C2=A0commit 42ba6200af10c00c72ac13912d6= fb42a7af88058
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Author: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Date: =C2=A0 2019= -08-26 08:02:31 +0200

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Allow finding gpg2 = binaries when gpg2 has an "unknown" version string

=C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0* lisp/epg-config.el (epg-find-configuration): Allow fi= nding a
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0usable configuration even if the vers= ion string looks like "gpg
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0(GnuPG) 2.2.1= 5-unknown" (bug#35629).

fixes one function, but there are other= uses of version-related functions in epg, for example

(= defun epg-required-version-p (protocol required-version)
=C2=A0 "Ve= rify a sufficient version of GnuPG for specific protocol.
PROTOCOL is sy= mbol, either `OpenPGP' or `CMS'.=C2=A0 REQUIRED-VERSION
is a str= ing containing the required version number.=C2=A0 Return
non-nil if that= version or higher is installed."
=C2=A0 (let ((version (cdr (assq = 'version (epg-find-configuration protocol)))))
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 (and (s= tringp version)
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0(version<=3D requir= ed-version version))))

which calls epg-find-co= nfiguration (which is protected by the above change), and then version<= =3D (which fails).

This makes epg-tests.el fail on= my gpg, from MSYS2:

$ gpg --version
gpg (GnuPG= ) 2.2.17-unknown
libgcrypt 1.8.4

Fixing thi= s with another let binding around `version<=3D' is trivial, but it i= s a kludge.

I think it makes more sense just addin= g "-unknown" to the formats recognized by default with version-re= gexp-alist.

(Note: after working around this bug, = epg tests still fail for me, but for unrelated reasons.)

--000000000000d0f9fc0593b913cc-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Sep 30 01:34:50 2019 Received: (at 37556) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Sep 2019 05:34:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56550 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iEoKg-0006LT-De for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 01:34:50 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:43716) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iEoKe-0006LK-QQ for 37556@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 01:34:49 -0400 Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=marnie) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iEoKb-0003P2-IT; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 07:34:47 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Juanma Barranquero Subject: Re: bug#37556: gpg "-unknown" version string References: Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 07:34:45 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Juanma Barranquero's message of "Mon, 30 Sep 2019 00:59:18 +0200") Message-ID: <87sgoel53e.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Juanma Barranquero writes: > I think it makes more sense just adding "-unknown" to the formats > recognized by default with version-regexp-alist. Hm... I guess that would make sense, but might there be other ramifications? All callers to version-to-list may get other data back than they are used to? Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 37556 Cc: 37556@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Juanma Barranquero writes: > I think it makes more sense just adding "-unknown" to the formats > recognized by default with version-regexp-alist. Hm... I guess that would make sense, but might there be other ramifications? All callers to version-to-list may get other data back than they are used to? I don't know much about how that function is used in general, though. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Sep 30 03:17:14 2019 Received: (at 37556) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Sep 2019 07:17:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56700 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iEpvm-0000lJ-88 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 03:17:14 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:60917) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iEpvl-0000h6-DS for 37556@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 03:17:13 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:34081) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iEpvg-000322-9V; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 03:17:08 -0400 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3335 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1iEpvf-0005QA-ON; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 03:17:08 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 10:17:05 +0300 Message-Id: <837e5qdzim.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Lars Ingebrigtsen In-reply-to: <87sgoel53e.fsf@gnus.org> (message from Lars Ingebrigtsen on Mon, 30 Sep 2019 07:34:45 +0200) Subject: Re: bug#37556: gpg "-unknown" version string References: <87sgoel53e.fsf@gnus.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 37556 Cc: lekktu@gmail.com, 37556@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Lars Ingebrigtsen > Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 07:34:45 +0200 > Cc: 37556@debbugs.gnu.org > > Juanma Barranquero writes: > > > I think it makes more sense just adding "-unknown" to the formats > > recognized by default with version-regexp-alist. > > Hm... I guess that would make sense, but might there be other > ramifications? All callers to version-to-list may get other data back > than they are used to? "-unknown" is unusual in version strings, IME. If this is somehow related to gpg, maybe we should chop that before we invoke the version-comparison functions, in gpg-related Lisp files only? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Sep 30 03:49:51 2019 Received: (at 37556) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Sep 2019 07:49:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56820 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iEqRL-00064Q-3b for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 03:49:51 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-f176.google.com ([209.85.160.176]:38231) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iEqRJ-00064B-E6 for 37556@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 03:49:49 -0400 Received: by mail-qt1-f176.google.com with SMTP id j31so15840623qta.5 for <37556@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 00:49:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=bDq2sO2Sl9atQFCW9eCldc1aZ/PyPM+ivDb5bToDWas=; b=twiFM6Vei5Mv251HzyZ3gZhXsMrJiu9FuIEBE7etIR8hhPtYqZHga59RektCWVZjIZ 820Rqeh9QF76PwNkeTF96eJ8N2odTiUntgMkFS0ylVhnuFa8Mgv5qHybwtmz7e0AIG41 XpJZ9A61D5xAbwEu/dsslYNwMpgzMpnSncs9ziUc2n9Lv6VDSAAKGP5v4tR3GkpOqQ0A 5WtLYufBcwR7RZyTniu214xptFsg14mKim/HvtWTYPAAYY9SzdYt/6kyw0mzXblSqt8w owu5lxI+QK5Z35WQUBQQ/xMQRkrH5L5CMweKHBKDvovIcHlokIUkQ6SqDJepEyln3rz0 EveA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=bDq2sO2Sl9atQFCW9eCldc1aZ/PyPM+ivDb5bToDWas=; b=EtzMdSuQIyaBIptwYo+vsaI0qDtmNXGp/+pNyyneUfQ+xLcMDekf0ulZ1Y45ztag0S b6qJPvUfYpRy+17l1wkv1jMjdKYeb32KMAxrwCBljlKL8BJsLjbNJ232t/+Fd1QLsYE9 ZjEpRBWC5BjGldQ73bTg7GOA3LIeQQ8oOFWfrT0zLz9WEWHftEGbD8LNG4/v+MBMXBab TcKbFCGRUu/jt9d/YHTms2e6f3EQihaAVP7WUV1FiKHGNX0JYRW642B0QkrJNt92oshC F9o7U3xbYRgxb3Q4V9u87KHuAde5cD2cYVifnCBPTcJtXE0K9JU6ZHs59CE+gkX8FXoq k6CA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWluqSphcEUm7uGkMDdesmIYKOqa/7bQe9BImXkFb0Hpk3YeWbh MqrYECtQvoFfYbUIp9z4TECv94dTV9+kBYkXVZM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxMi2SusF+oLJo1+ZDIe26yznagO3xonREZaCuPvsaj/kyjRkHaHzs89gS/ilYqCqkCDD0t+GcMcrKm6q7otAc= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:6611:: with SMTP id c17mr23487893qtp.17.1569829783702; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 00:49:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87sgoel53e.fsf@gnus.org> <837e5qdzim.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <837e5qdzim.fsf@gnu.org> From: Juanma Barranquero Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 09:49:06 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#37556: gpg "-unknown" version string To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009d92af0593c07a77" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 37556 Cc: 37556@debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --0000000000009d92af0593c07a77 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 9:17 AM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > "-unknown" is unusual in version strings, IME. Yes, but, why would that be a problem? It's not like we're going to find a lot of strings 1.2.3-unknown that aren't really version numbers, are we? > If this is somehow > related to gpg, maybe we should chop that before we invoke the > version-comparison functions, in gpg-related Lisp files only? Chopping would mean that 2.2.17 and 2.2.17-unknown are equal, but currently 2.2.17-unknown (in epg) is less than 2.2.17. Certainly the problem can be fixed by wrapping more code with (let ((version-regexp-alist (cons ...)) ...). It's just that it seems a bit kludgy to me. But whatever, not really a big issue. --0000000000009d92af0593c07a77 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 9:17 AM Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> "= -unknown" is unusual in version strings, IME.=C2=A0

Yes, but, why would that be a problem? It's not like we're going t= o find a lot of strings 1.2.3-unknown that aren't really version number= s, are we?

> If this is somehow
> related= to gpg, maybe we should chop that before we invoke the
> version-com= parison functions, in gpg-related Lisp files only?

Chopping would mean that 2.2.17 and 2.2.17-unknown are equal, but currentl= y 2.2.17-unknown (in epg) is less than 2.2.17.

Cer= tainly the problem can be fixed by wrapping more code with (let ((version-r= egexp-alist (cons ...)) ...). It's just that it seems a bit kludgy to m= e. But whatever, not really a big issue.


--0000000000009d92af0593c07a77-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Sep 30 04:46:59 2019 Received: (at 37556) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Sep 2019 08:46:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56919 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iErKc-0005JZ-SK for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 04:46:59 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:45071) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iErKY-0005JK-VI for 37556@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 04:46:55 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:35595) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iErKT-0005K7-Dt; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 04:46:49 -0400 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4911 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1iErKS-0000vE-Ol; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 04:46:49 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 11:46:47 +0300 Message-Id: <83pnjicgso.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Juanma Barranquero In-reply-to: (message from Juanma Barranquero on Mon, 30 Sep 2019 09:49:06 +0200) Subject: Re: bug#37556: gpg "-unknown" version string References: <87sgoel53e.fsf@gnus.org> <837e5qdzim.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 37556 Cc: 37556@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Juanma Barranquero > Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 09:49:06 +0200 > Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , 37556@debbugs.gnu.org > > Chopping would mean that 2.2.17 and 2.2.17-unknown are equal, but currently 2.2.17-unknown (in epg) is less > than 2.2.17. You are saying that -unknown is in this case the same as -alpha. My problem is how to be sure this is the case everywhere where -unknown could be used. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Sep 30 05:33:31 2019 Received: (at 37556) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Sep 2019 09:33:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56954 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iEs3f-0006QY-Hn for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 05:33:31 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-f176.google.com ([209.85.160.176]:36856) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iEs3e-0006QL-Cv for 37556@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 05:33:30 -0400 Received: by mail-qt1-f176.google.com with SMTP id o12so16149042qtf.3 for <37556@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 02:33:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=t0NvLc08LPu9SMob2wKc/6/6faM2ROjVOAQG0s23I0E=; b=tZbiWZSOowO17W9HSRC5jAopVkVEU+0pDeG0O8LTaOU1TcUSHoFlNBSPStqELtfmu7 PlRZ831caZkzNycvWx47IlOgV3fwwB7qvYRlNvHmnZ/Zz6LX22n7Z+Stlw2klbJq5do5 mzH2qSghAqcnEdm7gyjwXsLyZ7sOM627FJnzdV4vZ6wYlssYLxl+1Yyu7iurV2CT0eOn GdcQT2DQs2utWN27W8HPBo1x/jXvmakWaJNJaXsf8zw1PRGEzC8Avt8tHzFR2dc2DmZe QmN8J3yVJPw4JW2nbmbSDCB9V4ntaEBc0JNk2S5Dv5iHPorOw2n6Zw+KhNypB/J3Ylnv WdcQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=t0NvLc08LPu9SMob2wKc/6/6faM2ROjVOAQG0s23I0E=; b=Aks00mSjGWMFtObVksZRvpiMjmef9BKCgG59xiO9DLgm74NHhB3oKNA3JH9KHANjIB BbPNWZ2Idiq7niTVtrFpVBPuttTDjZzOT2fTHi3fefv6qjwMBWV7nBZUebsKqBpuHSVP V9XRlYqqXSQfcLubr0f5iC9eoghgAVJaRDHS8YYp9yrZlZeUKvNcDExGOZ3zqtDo/bxA LttWUgi4EEUh/fO/FEsXBccOB2VbkMICU4TOoNhEvkZHh63OVIUqq+53v+ott9UiOWiM +MEjaAqA5DCL9DotlwDbN54Ka+/1tHgtQi57EgG5OTaE/pvWMGcF1OVsIqTSYe7nA4Qv GTZA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVmapOzFbbOq9PwLtqPrwm2S4MsEQYhSxDCXNSxtvcbGqJwnqib +mioaI33jYcXUUOZmAZdM/sw/esNMcwFPQA/OFU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyKVBn4jUVmlsE3LnRyqbJM4ska80DpwzJYFU/MDfCjmMrwt7YYWbvG9I9DAcrze8Tlm89Qa32JzAQX/dbYeug= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:2bca:: with SMTP id n10mr24064012qtn.242.1569836004686; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 02:33:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87sgoel53e.fsf@gnus.org> <837e5qdzim.fsf@gnu.org> <83pnjicgso.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83pnjicgso.fsf@gnu.org> From: Juanma Barranquero Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 11:32:47 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#37556: gpg "-unknown" version string To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006a3fe70593c1edea" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 37556 Cc: 37556@debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --0000000000006a3fe70593c1edea Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 10:46 AM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > You are saying that -unknown is in this case the same as -alpha. In fact, Lars gave it priority -4, so like a snapshot. > My problem is how to be sure this is the case everywhere where -unknown > could be used. True, but if -unknown is really uncommon, we can deal with the problems as they are reported (if ever). --0000000000006a3fe70593c1edea Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 10:46 AM Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> Y= ou are saying that -unknown is in this case the same as -alpha.
<= br>
In fact, Lars gave it priority -4, so like a snapshot.
<= div>
> My problem is how to be sure this is the case every= where where -unknown
> could be used.

True, = but if -unknown is really uncommon, we can deal with the problems as they a= re reported (if ever).

--0000000000006a3fe70593c1edea-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Sep 30 10:04:15 2019 Received: (at 37556) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Sep 2019 14:04:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59981 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iEwHe-00052H-QZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 10:04:15 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:53950) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iEwHd-000529-HV for 37556@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 10:04:13 -0400 Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=marnie) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iEwHZ-0001w4-GK; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 16:04:12 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Juanma Barranquero Subject: Re: bug#37556: gpg "-unknown" version string References: <87sgoel53e.fsf@gnus.org> <837e5qdzim.fsf@gnu.org> <83pnjicgso.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 16:04:09 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Juanma Barranquero's message of "Mon, 30 Sep 2019 11:32:47 +0200") Message-ID: <87r23xdgo6.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Juanma Barranquero writes: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 10:46 AM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> You are saying that -unknown is in this case the same as -alpha. > > In fact, Lars gave it priority -4, so like a snapshot. [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 37556 Cc: 37556@debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Juanma Barranquero writes: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 10:46 AM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> You are saying that -unknown is in this case the same as -alpha. > > In fact, Lars gave it priority -4, so like a snapshot. > >> My problem is how to be sure this is the case everywhere where -unknown >> could be used. > > True, but if -unknown is really uncommon, we can deal with the problems as > they are reported (if ever). Looking at the code, just keeping this in epg* is really awkward, because we compare the version strings afterwards (in other contexts) with version<=, which will then fail. So I think this patch is needed to fix the epg problem. But I'm not confident that it won't change behaviour for other users of these version functions. On the other hand, we have been adding to this alist over the years without anything blowing up (that I know of), so perhaps it is safe-ish? If it turns out to be a problem, it's easy enough to back out (but then I don't really know how to fix the original epg problem in a sensible manner). diff --git a/lisp/subr.el b/lisp/subr.el index 45b99a82d2..efe530cd54 100644 --- a/lisp/subr.el +++ b/lisp/subr.el @@ -5285,6 +5285,8 @@ version-regexp-alist ("^[-._+]$" . -4) ;; treat "1.2.3-CVS" as snapshot release ("^[-._+ ]?\\(cvs\\|git\\|bzr\\|svn\\|hg\\|darcs\\)$" . -4) + ;; treat "-unknown" the same as snapshots. + ("^[-._+ ]?unknown$" . -4) ("^[-._+ ]?alpha$" . -3) ("^[-._+ ]?beta$" . -2) ("^[-._+ ]?\\(pre\\|rc\\)$" . -1)) -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Sep 30 10:04:25 2019 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Sep 2019 14:04:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59984 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iEwHp-00052i-5v for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 10:04:25 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:53968) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iEwHn-00052a-9E for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 10:04:23 -0400 Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=marnie) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iEwHk-0001wE-Ij for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 16:04:22 +0200 Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 16:04:20 +0200 Message-Id: <87pnjhdgnv.fsf@gnus.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #37556 X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: tags 37556 + patch quit Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) tags 37556 + patch quit From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Sep 30 10:25:31 2019 Received: (at 37556) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Sep 2019 14:25:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60030 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iEwcE-0007dh-P9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 10:25:30 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-f51.google.com ([209.85.166.51]:41001) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iEwcD-0007dT-Az for 37556@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 10:25:29 -0400 Received: by mail-io1-f51.google.com with SMTP id n26so10280940ioj.8 for <37556@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 07:25:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=VO/wGTK3KA6JGR/Z1LkgMCramiJd9IYeXvgYlmsb4no=; b=K5rVdR6FLR0277U0MPFGyJ9xbwkvZGytFNy8qytBrDs9XFK8Zs8AnTvwFaqU4GValj 4IJ9fqiKtlfc6SqKCfCla/9OkOvxpO8o4SGhyLlmaiW1uTEN+vPADamzbNB/elYZ81j3 toPMesETt0LsfModO5156ZyrAbB7G1Gv9OSoJ3miCJZe4sdBhJ9fLpThQF8Mniy4zC+F G8fGP2Y6WELo8jnxPzqPckTtPfQAfOgAl8Bmmem6ywcAP6sZwKA2N420x/ZIDqr6MEDC P273mK27ika1nnI1CF3RlQHLMTKvzJcvXJLqg7QKkhaXgVEdv0aPzfbMSBpg51QXnar+ OheA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=VO/wGTK3KA6JGR/Z1LkgMCramiJd9IYeXvgYlmsb4no=; b=t0ORJxGUTG2Hai8/Jl6sNgCudL314+ibZjTuW6Q3ZpuuKX3F7JaRsxttwhZT43yLdr 3mQg9GVB+oXN+FVGq/HDybKwwiYLv/yEjKuEFPz10dJ5qtCQHvgP2dVVN8BMTGqZR9q8 Rie8HdgQCtErkpp5gu7ik0PoUwQxWdAf8HS3BtgVRnbM8R0nZYM857ULOFuFC6qCuhf5 SKtVMFAnLb76//dnzHwL74vUplPOLg6vSx0Fpq60K4MFuvEkGy1A/7I+IZ2+KwrCdnOA Q3nLauooJS0XykzewtWzs3e+jIFA4gwtogh/qZQWJQ8riyLPYwdL3Ly6ak2Hk2Wl3Cxx qwLA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWyilR8HRwwEWtYxjIzjFCWUZ8CW3QMBa60A+4bekv6J79HzytI eIsKU6jtzMG7M85fLE6S8n4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxFtiEtM9Pv1sVztc/ea9aVq9/bxm/w0y6CyQuwS+3IWSQcBgAfO0rX+ScLA/6vFt9VB4UJ+Q== X-Received: by 2002:a6b:c382:: with SMTP id t124mr21577411iof.105.1569853523034; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 07:25:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vhost2 (CPE001143542e1f-CMf81d0f809fa0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com. [99.230.38.42]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v3sm6036085ioh.51.2019.09.30.07.25.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 30 Sep 2019 07:25:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Noam Postavsky To: Juanma Barranquero Subject: Re: bug#37556: gpg "-unknown" version string References: <87sgoel53e.fsf@gnus.org> <837e5qdzim.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 10:25:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Juanma Barranquero's message of "Mon, 30 Sep 2019 09:49:06 +0200") Message-ID: <85imp9kgj1.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (windows-nt) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 37556 Cc: 37556@debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii , Lars Ingebrigtsen X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Juanma Barranquero writes: >> If this is somehow related to gpg, maybe we should chop that before >> we invoke the version-comparison functions, in gpg-related Lisp files >> only? > > Chopping would mean that 2.2.17 and 2.2.17-unknown are equal, but currently > 2.2.17-unknown (in epg) is less than 2.2.17. I don't understand why making -unknown equivalent to a lesser version makes sense. Shouldn't 2.2.17 and 2.2.17-unknown in fact be equal? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Sep 30 10:42:37 2019 Received: (at 37556) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Sep 2019 14:42:37 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60066 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iEwsn-0001jK-36 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 10:42:37 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:54746) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iEwsj-0001j9-0n for 37556@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 10:42:35 -0400 Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=marnie) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iEwsf-0002N1-QV; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 16:42:32 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Noam Postavsky Subject: Re: bug#37556: gpg "-unknown" version string References: <87sgoel53e.fsf@gnus.org> <837e5qdzim.fsf@gnu.org> <85imp9kgj1.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 16:42:29 +0200 In-Reply-To: <85imp9kgj1.fsf@gmail.com> (Noam Postavsky's message of "Mon, 30 Sep 2019 10:25:22 -0400") Message-ID: <875zl9dewa.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Noam Postavsky writes: > Juanma Barranquero writes: > >>> If this is somehow related to gpg, maybe we should chop that before >>> we invoke the version-comparison functions, in gpg-related Lisp files >>> [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 37556 Cc: Juanma Barranquero , Eli Zaretskii , 37556@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Noam Postavsky writes: > Juanma Barranquero writes: > >>> If this is somehow related to gpg, maybe we should chop that before >>> we invoke the version-comparison functions, in gpg-related Lisp files >>> only? >> >> Chopping would mean that 2.2.17 and 2.2.17-unknown are equal, but currently >> 2.2.17-unknown (in epg) is less than 2.2.17. > > I don't understand why making -unknown equivalent to a lesser version > makes sense. Shouldn't 2.2.17 and 2.2.17-unknown in fact be equal? Should they? 2.2.17-pre and 2.2.17-alpha should be less than 2.2.17, but how do we know that -unknown isn't something -alpha-ish? -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Sep 30 10:46:36 2019 Received: (at 37556) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Sep 2019 14:46:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60085 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iEwwd-0003Ce-Ny for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 10:46:36 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-f53.google.com ([209.85.166.53]:46081) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iEwwc-000380-IY for 37556@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 10:46:34 -0400 Received: by mail-io1-f53.google.com with SMTP id c6so38855963ioo.13 for <37556@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 07:46:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=vL5vj0oFluqhErmd5za511nOIRd0vBLxEEl5meKnnlU=; b=oR5G1uCtwQD0xDTNUAtzIYZAE/8MwCPd7hYhuYLQX1324B8PHAywb/QkX5MOOsKw0z Kb+URfDer3qvZaVJJjBj1XxGqS4vAZODUwkmfyk375E2WoflqSG88/S7A9Y60o+2XjHc 9145vdGM62sR8V+H+7yNVXlNq1O0xGHePjFqR2HXDFKchsXjYtGU0ikXz87OZmELSrUP pVbWq0dOeLsUDFYFb8PHlxHTDhYpIeZvkkwnrxqJioufnHHRsXMFajanmOlZWVxhCI17 a4W1AXc3Qi3gl0x/b4gWD3wCNE5AMlskHQY6GpbAMIS7ecj1q46RuUX6zHjvASTCa/cY lA6A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=vL5vj0oFluqhErmd5za511nOIRd0vBLxEEl5meKnnlU=; b=d1/rJFcZtf0RypIMUnBtZazTUFUszm2N0wS8PgR3s1IdLilxaJ/A5zv+N+QILj2NSE rz4U1KVGOeOJNMm7avq/aWLU2R7nVzl/3CiJTZRoZczI+/vnU5brAYNejHVoBUdoIgmL aQmL9cWUvaEMvOSqGTMNfUDgDLGD2UCGPBfupwvBqUwv4PmyvizjP9YTNIz3RrgaEptT EMPHl2Mf5n+jxnXbPOOcALNvzeIRlq0EFpY4240iKbbUVJSS9Q22SNiKylF+FBBKZIK3 qmTDYBE+Tm0Fs/Vkz2MMlKrR2UH0NBB2Sg4g3c1tBu9uYmRUEfbo56eypmUH39e2HQ8B 7H+A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU/8ktb25TXntpIBrwhj6xjRFLWOBhjI74BpIJ5S+Wtojbb+6bQ +xctYHkRzuZza/12qYZySRUI+fdk X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzWVtdb2CxcfGfUxnHPLUHKQTri4K85x0GPyz1JSWsBWve0nJd4WmZVTG7FiASJ8KviYwd1/Q== X-Received: by 2002:a6b:7102:: with SMTP id q2mr557067iog.154.1569854788715; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 07:46:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vhost2 (CPE001143542e1f-CMf81d0f809fa0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com. [99.230.38.42]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t4sm4430073ili.8.2019.09.30.07.46.27 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 30 Sep 2019 07:46:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Noam Postavsky To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: Re: bug#37556: gpg "-unknown" version string References: <87sgoel53e.fsf@gnus.org> <837e5qdzim.fsf@gnu.org> <85imp9kgj1.fsf@gmail.com> <875zl9dewa.fsf@gnus.org> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 10:46:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: <875zl9dewa.fsf@gnus.org> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Mon, 30 Sep 2019 16:42:29 +0200") Message-ID: <85ftkdkfjv.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (windows-nt) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 37556 Cc: Juanma Barranquero , Eli Zaretskii , 37556@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: >> I don't understand why making -unknown equivalent to a lesser version >> makes sense. Shouldn't 2.2.17 and 2.2.17-unknown in fact be equal? > > Should they? 2.2.17-pre and 2.2.17-alpha should be less than 2.2.17, > but how do we know that -unknown isn't something -alpha-ish? It's "unknown", so it could be something opposite-of-alpha-ish too, right? On average, 0 seems right. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Oct 01 08:09:44 2019 Received: (at 37556) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Oct 2019 12:09:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60970 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iFGyO-0003Rc-5L for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 01 Oct 2019 08:09:44 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:49144) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iFGyM-0003RU-92 for 37556@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 01 Oct 2019 08:09:42 -0400 Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=marnie) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iFGyH-0002Hh-CZ; Tue, 01 Oct 2019 14:09:41 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Noam Postavsky Subject: Re: bug#37556: gpg "-unknown" version string References: <87sgoel53e.fsf@gnus.org> <837e5qdzim.fsf@gnu.org> <85imp9kgj1.fsf@gmail.com> <875zl9dewa.fsf@gnus.org> <85ftkdkfjv.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2019 14:09:36 +0200 In-Reply-To: <85ftkdkfjv.fsf@gmail.com> (Noam Postavsky's message of "Mon, 30 Sep 2019 10:46:28 -0400") Message-ID: <87sgoc8y67.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Noam Postavsky writes: > Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > >>> I don't understand why making -unknown equivalent to a lesser version >>> makes sense. Shouldn't 2.2.17 and 2.2.17-unknown in fact be equal? >> >> Sh [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 37556 Cc: Juanma Barranquero , Eli Zaretskii , 37556@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Noam Postavsky writes: > Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > >>> I don't understand why making -unknown equivalent to a lesser version >>> makes sense. Shouldn't 2.2.17 and 2.2.17-unknown in fact be equal? >> >> Should they? 2.2.17-pre and 2.2.17-alpha should be less than 2.2.17, >> but how do we know that -unknown isn't something -alpha-ish? > > It's "unknown", so it could be something opposite-of-alpha-ish too, > right? On average, 0 seems right. That's possible. Does anybody know how usual these -unknown things are, and why they exist? -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Oct 01 10:59:30 2019 Received: (at 37556) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Oct 2019 14:59:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34326 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iFJcg-0001KK-CJ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 01 Oct 2019 10:59:30 -0400 Received: from snd00001.auone-net.jp ([111.86.247.1]:38915 helo=dmta0007.auone-net.jp) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iFJcc-0001K4-4b for 37556@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 01 Oct 2019 10:59:29 -0400 Received: from kzhr.d1.dion.ne.jp by dmta0007.auone-net.jp with ESMTP id <20191001145922804.JFLJ.13377.kzhr.d1.dion.ne.jp@dmta0007.auone-net.jp>; Tue, 1 Oct 2019 23:59:22 +0900 Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2019 23:59:20 +0900 Message-ID: <86h84so6k7.wl--xmue@d1.dion.ne.jp> From: Kazuhiro Ito To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: Re: bug#37556: gpg "-unknown" version string In-Reply-To: <87sgoc8y67.fsf@gnus.org> References: <87sgoel53e.fsf@gnus.org> <837e5qdzim.fsf@gnu.org> <85imp9kgj1.fsf@gmail.com> <875zl9dewa.fsf@gnus.org> <85ftkdkfjv.fsf@gmail.com> <87sgoc8y67.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue) FLIM/1.14.9 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Goj=F2?=) APEL/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/27.0 (x86_64-w64-mingw32) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 37556 Cc: Juanma Barranquero , Noam Postavsky , 37556@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) > >>> I don't understand why making -unknown equivalent to a lesser version > >>> makes sense. Shouldn't 2.2.17 and 2.2.17-unknown in fact be equal? > >> > >> Should they? 2.2.17-pre and 2.2.17-alpha should be less than 2.2.17, > >> but how do we know that -unknown isn't something -alpha-ish? > > > > It's "unknown", so it could be something opposite-of-alpha-ish too, > > right? On average, 0 seems right. > > That's possible. Does anybody know how usual these -unknown things are, > and why they exist? I don't know "why", but I described when the suffix was added in the past post. https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=35629#11 > GnuPG's autogen.sh makes "-unknown" suffix version configure script if > source code directory doesn't have .git directory. If you have the repository, autogen.sh can set an apropriate revision number. I guess "-unknown" version means "unknown version" literally, because they couldn't decide the source code revision without repository. -- Kazuhiro Ito From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Oct 12 23:01:17 2019 Received: (at 37556) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Oct 2019 03:01:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34665 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iJU8B-0004P3-A1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 23:01:17 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:47286) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iJU89-0004Os-9k for 37556@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 23:01:13 -0400 Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=marnie) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iJU84-0003gT-Ai; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 05:01:12 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Juanma Barranquero Subject: Re: bug#37556: gpg "-unknown" version string References: Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2019 05:01:08 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Juanma Barranquero's message of "Mon, 30 Sep 2019 00:59:18 +0200") Message-ID: <875zkte4cr.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Juanma Barranquero writes: > This commit > > commit 42ba6200af10c00c72ac13912d6fb42a7af88058 > Author: Lars Ingebrigtsen > Date: 2019-08-26 08:02:31 +0200 > > Allow finding gpg2 binaries when gpg2 has an "unkno [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 37556 Cc: 37556@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Juanma Barranquero writes: > This commit > > commit 42ba6200af10c00c72ac13912d6fb42a7af88058 > Author: Lars Ingebrigtsen > Date: 2019-08-26 08:02:31 +0200 > > Allow finding gpg2 binaries when gpg2 has an "unknown" version string > > * lisp/epg-config.el (epg-find-configuration): Allow finding a > usable configuration even if the version string looks like "gpg > (GnuPG) 2.2.15-unknown" (bug#35629). > > fixes one function, but there are other uses of version-related > functions in epg, for example I've now reverted this patch, and pushed the more general version-regexp-alist patch. I rated -unknown as -alpha -- there was some discussion about whether that's best, but no conclusion was reached, really. It can be tweaked later if that's problematic. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Oct 12 23:01:22 2019 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Oct 2019 03:01:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34668 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iJU8H-0004PM-Tc for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 23:01:22 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:47302) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iJU8G-0004PE-R4 for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 23:01:21 -0400 Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=marnie) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iJU8E-0003gc-1k for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 05:01:20 +0200 Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2019 05:01:17 +0200 Message-Id: <874l0de4ci.fsf@gnus.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #37556 X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: tags 37556 fixed close 37556 27.1 quit Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) tags 37556 fixed close 37556 27.1 quit From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Oct 13 01:13:42 2019 Received: (at 37556-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Oct 2019 05:13:42 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34773 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iJWCM-0005UD-GX for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 01:13:42 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-f179.google.com ([209.85.222.179]:39427) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iJWCK-0005Tz-O2 for 37556-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 01:13:41 -0400 Received: by mail-qk1-f179.google.com with SMTP id 4so12779871qki.6 for <37556-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 22:13:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ATyXf6+EcVOAsL6u0nrbD1i6EMA+oxiFsnfkcvfn0+E=; b=TPHGhBiDc714diZyQ40MPkbh45l/mYX/A/g/EVqo1aBkZYbLIJAZOpLP0tRv59a0v6 NAfHpmFofQ13vEksFau6E5oisj/AIojU4LJTo80ei3MMUlKmaKM9JPidUH2+6UqDgDOD yWby3iM+J/bPmPSBTw74+fkEWATY4fBrEL2BQCJLaAODh4Im0a5xL6xAh409PRXw6QEe 9zYM2A3sKhBw1HZmwO25nmNavmQ0URtFcPZBiJsFwoJEAMRIi26Y72gkWnhPWOCT1wKy m7xPKgF/jkmXJui9CfT+5Cmtx/I9mLR/+ONp9Uy5UyUmKlWg80jvSY3hx9nNtS3Ch7tm qHkA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ATyXf6+EcVOAsL6u0nrbD1i6EMA+oxiFsnfkcvfn0+E=; b=QFQUkPOWVsIlttNhu128KsnfIcECBOuM9YbOCx8PElUuDfIT8qYLwHhG2dfYqOVH9T QNhoU10CFO3cuqIzuzwn0ThoEFi0e8xHeKyD1eFZPDGbtLKHT/OEMnAzXr9BwGzMrAqN P2RSJV7Vr6pNP4H3V97Caj2gEIvrQ14cEWTy8lADOXTp2BxgHOcK70mQl7ez4tw9V4gS BLglCNG5NbeawvaBcYNxzT/v05zKTGmDMxJMiz34E2vLcLqihMZIGIKtZbI5PsDoNogH Oj0n6b7d3xUUqy1lSdoIOuOM3Spxf3o61/mEUlYQzFLNT7VE/UHRvwuruWtx/dVug4qu BErg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXpxVTQ6aX6Gs3WQFXh39eW7xJhUtH2+2f052b0s9ULrT/ScqnO dhlSELdSJGZSmffQUsxh3v08HvI2udalYRpn1JI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzTevK31iT0bJ3/rIJ5tZ6TLvzkh890m7Dz6ES2yTwwkRaJEP59Z/dbZ7oNLeeprBcpHAZWrlAvuWBT0wNkNYY= X-Received: by 2002:ae9:c307:: with SMTP id n7mr24083973qkg.185.1570943615094; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 22:13:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <875zkte4cr.fsf@gnus.org> In-Reply-To: <875zkte4cr.fsf@gnus.org> From: Juanma Barranquero Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2019 07:12:59 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#37556: gpg "-unknown" version string To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000023d3880594c3d0f0" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 37556-done Cc: 37556-done@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --00000000000023d3880594c3d0f0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 5:01 AM Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote: > I've now reverted this patch, and pushed the more general > version-regexp-alist patch. I rated -unknown as -alpha -- there was > some discussion about whether that's best, but no conclusion was > reached, really. It can be tweaked later if that's problematic. Thanks. Closing this bug. --00000000000023d3880594c3d0f0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 5:01 AM Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote:

>= ; I've now reverted this patch, and pushed the more general
> ver= sion-regexp-alist patch.=C2=A0 I rated -unknown as -alpha -- there was
&= gt; some discussion about whether that's best, but no conclusion was> reached, really.=C2=A0 It can be tweaked later if that's problema= tic.

Thanks. Closing this bug.
--00000000000023d3880594c3d0f0-- From unknown Fri Aug 15 17:20:16 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 12:24:13 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator