[Bug 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-04-08 00:45:17 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- bouncycastle1.58-1.58-1.el6, canl-java-2.5.0-2.el6, jglobus-2.1.0-5.el6, voms-api-java-3.3.0-1.el6, voms-clients-java-3.3.0-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- bouncycastle1.58-1.58-1.el6, canl-java-2.5.0-2.el6, jglobus-2.1.0-5.el6, voms-api-java-3.3.0-1.el6, voms-clients-java-3.3.0-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-71db8f6f28 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- bouncycastle1.58-1.58-1.el6 canl-java-2.5.0-2.el6 jglobus-2.1.0-5.el6 voms-api-java-3.3.0-1.el6 voms-clients-java-3.3.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-71db8f6f28 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- bouncycastle1.58-1.58-1.el6, canl-java-2.5.0-2.el6, jglobus-2.1.0-5.el6, voms-api-java-3.2.0-7.el6, voms-clients-java-3.0.7-6.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-71db8f6f28 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- bouncycastle1.58-1.58-1.el6 canl-java-2.5.0-2.el6 jglobus-2.1.0-5.el6 voms-api-java-3.2.0-7.el6 voms-clients-java-3.0.7-6.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-71db8f6f28 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bouncycastle1.58. You may commit to the branch "el6" in about 10 minutes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134 Mattias Ellert changed: What|Removed |Added Component|Package Review |Package Review Version|rawhide |el6 Product|Fedora |Fedora EPEL -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Package approved then. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134 --- Comment #2 from Mattias Ellert --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > There's a few fedora-review errors but I don't know how pertinent they are > regarding EPEL6 packaging, you're using old macros instead of > %mvn_artifact/%mvn_install because they don't exist in EPEL6? Correct. The %mvn_artifact/%mvn_install macros can be used in EPEL7 (where they are part of the maven-local package) but not in EPEL6. In EPEL6 the old %add_maven_depmap macro (used in Fedora before %mvn_artifact/%mvn_install were introduced) does not exist. The even older %add_to_maven_depmap/%update_maven_depmap macros must be used instead. The Requires: jpackage-utils is not added automatically to javadoc packages in EPEL6. The zero-length file rpmlint complains about is on purpose. All information is contained in the filename, and the file's content is never read. Compare with the file in the standard non-compat bouncycastle package (either in Fedora or EPEL): $ ls -l /etc/java/security/security.d/2000-org.bouncycastle.jce.provider.BouncyCastleProvider -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 0 19 aug 04.26 /etc/java/security/security.d/2000-org.bouncycastle.jce.provider.BouncyCastleProvider > Issues: > === > - POM files have correct Maven mapping > Note: Old style Maven package found, no add_maven_depmap calls found but > POM files present > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Maven_pom.xml_files > - Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is being used > - Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils > Note: jpackage-utils requires are automatically generated by the > buildsystem > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java > Rpmlint > --- > Checking: bouncycastle1.58-1.58-1.el6.noarch.rpm > bouncycastle1.58-pkix-1.58-1.el6.noarch.rpm > bouncycastle1.58-pg-1.58-1.el6.noarch.rpm > bouncycastle1.58-mail-1.58-1.el6.noarch.rpm > bouncycastle1.58-tls-1.58-1.el6.noarch.rpm > bouncycastle1.58-javadoc-1.58-1.el6.noarch.rpm > bouncycastle1.58-1.58-1.el6.src.rpm > bouncycastle1.58.noarch: E: zero-length > /etc/java/security/security.d/2158-org.bouncycastle.jce.provider. > BouncyCastleProvider > 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- There's a few fedora-review errors but I don't know how pertinent they are regarding EPEL6 packaging, you're using old macros instead of %mvn_artifact/%mvn_install because they don't exist in EPEL6? Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: === - POM files have correct Maven mapping Note: Old style Maven package found, no add_maven_depmap calls found but POM files present See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Maven_pom.xml_files - Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is being used - Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils Note: jpackage-utils requires are automatically generated by the buildsystem See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java = MUST items = Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "CC0", "*No copyright* Apache (v1.1)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 5580 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/bouncycastle1.58/review- bouncycastle1.58/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven2/poms, /usr/share/maven2, /etc/maven/fragments [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/maven, /usr/share/maven2/poms, /etc/maven/fragments, /usr/share/maven2 [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 296960 bytes in 12 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Maven: [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even when building