Bug #68150 for Module-Signature: 0.67 incorrectly verifies SIGNATURE files generated by 0.66

Thu May 12 12:21:04 2011 trs [...] bestpractical.com - Ticket created

Subject:	0.67 incorrectly verifies SIGNATURE files generated by 0.66
Date:	Thu, 12 May 2011 12:20:58 -0400
To:	bug-Module-Signature [...] rt.cpan.org
From:	Thomas Sibley <trs [...] bestpractical.com>

It seems like some SHAs are missing when verifying the 0.66 signature file with 0.67. I replicated the problem locally using the Jifty 1.10228 tarball. Downgrading to 0.66 fixed the problem. See this bug report: https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=68141 The relevant output: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Attachment/WithHeaders/484936 Thomas

Thu May 12 22:08:24 2011 ANDK [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added

I have prepared a 0.67_01: https://github.com/andk/module-signature It's waiting for review, so if you can, give it a try.

Thu May 12 22:08:26 2011 The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open'

Fri May 13 11:59:08 2011 trs [...] bestpractical.com - Correspondence added

Subject:	Re: [rt.cpan.org #68150] 0.67 incorrectly verifies SIGNATURE files generated by 0.66
Date:	Fri, 13 May 2011 11:59:02 -0400
To:	bug-Module-Signature [...] rt.cpan.org
From:	Thomas Sibley <trs [...] bestpractical.com>

On 05/12/2011 10:08 PM, Andreas Koenig via RT wrote: Show quoted text

> I have prepared a 0.67_01: > > https://github.com/andk/module-signature > > It's waiting for review, so if you can, give it a try.

0.68 seems to fix the problem. Thanks! (I assume 0.67_01 became 0.68.)

Tue Oct 02 14:32:29 2012 trs [...] bestpractical.com - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved'