[Bug 197963] Review Request: bouncycastle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bouncycastle https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197963 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Core |Fedora -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197963] Review Request: bouncycastle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bouncycastle https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197963 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-18 13:07 EST --- Was built into rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197963] Review Request: bouncycastle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bouncycastle https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197963 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO_REPORTER OtherBugsDependingO|188267 |188268 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-17 15:08 EST --- No more rpmlint errors. Package approved. I assume that this will be marked as a dep of some other package, and it doesn't need to go into Comps right? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197963] Review Request: bouncycastle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: bouncycastle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197963
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-17 15:33 EST ---
Is the intention of %{_javadir}/gcj-endorsed that only gcj (not other JVMs)
should be using stuff from there? Other JVMs, eg. the Sun one, would have
problems with the jar because it's not signed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197963] Review Request: bouncycastle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: bouncycastle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197963
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-17 15:47 EST ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Is the intention of %{_javadir}/gcj-endorsed that only gcj (not other JVMs)
should be using stuff from there? Other JVMs, eg. the Sun one, would have
problems with the jar because it's not signed.
Yes, I'm not supporting non-GNU Classpath based JVMs with this RPM.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197963] Review Request: bouncycastle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bouncycastle https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197963 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-17 16:00 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) No more rpmlint errors. Package approved. I assume that this will be marked as a dep of some other package, and it doesn't need to go into Comps right? For now let's leave it out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197963] Review Request: bouncycastle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: bouncycastle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197963
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-10 17:31 EST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
NEEDSWORK:
- Buildroot should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
Done.
- Remove Epoch: 0
Done.
- Specifying 0 epoch on Requires and BuildRequires is not necessary. Remove
them.
Done.
- RPM_BUILD_ROOT=bctmp aot-compile-rpm -- what is this doing? Why reset the
buildroot?
Yeah, I realized I don't need this, it's already done by aot-compile-rpm in the
%install section.
- Post and postun scripts should probably have logic for final removal vs
upgrade. As it stands you'll run rebuild-security-providers and
rebuild-gcj-db
twice every time you upgrade the package. Once for the new package, and once
for removing the old package.
OK.
rpmlint output:
E: bouncycastle zero-length
/etc/java/security/security.d/2000-org.bouncycastle.jce.provider.BouncyCastleProvider
W: bouncycastle-debuginfo objdump-failed objdump:
/tmp/bouncycastle-debuginfo-1.33-1.x86_64.rpm.17761/usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/gcj/bouncycastle/bcprov-1.33.jar.so.debug:
File format not recognized
W: bouncycastle mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
W: bouncycastle non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/java/security/security.d/2000-org.bouncycastle.jce.provider.BouncyCastleProvider
W: bouncycastle objdump-failed objdump:
/tmp/bouncycastle-1.33-1.x86_64.rpm.17761/usr/lib64/gcj/bouncycastle/bcprov-1.33.jar.so:
File format not recognized
The Zero length file, I see it just being touched. Does it just need to
exist?
If so, we can ignore the error. However it should be marked as a config
file.
The filename 2000-org.bouncycastle.jce.provider.BouncyCastleProvider is
interpreted by rebuild-security-providers as provider priority-provider
package name, and is used to rebuild /usr/lib/security/classpath.security. Its
contents are meaningless. I don't want to mark it as %config because then if
someone edits it and then updates, a backup file with the extension .rpmsave
will be created and will cause a bogus entry to appear in
/usr/lib/security/classpath.security.
Not sure about the objdump warnings.
I ran rpmlint (0.77-1.fc5) on my x86 workstation and didn't see those warnings.
I'll post the updated package shortly.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197963] Review Request: bouncycastle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bouncycastle https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197963 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-10 17:36 EST --- Updated Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/fitzsim/bouncycastle.spec Updated SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/fitzsim/bouncycastle-1.33-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197963] Review Request: bouncycastle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bouncycastle https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197963 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-07 14:36 EST --- I'm introducing this package because currently we include the BouncyCastle JCE in java-1.4.2-gcj-compat, whereas it really deserves to be its own package. I don't think BouncyCastle should go in Extras because it is a crypto library and therefore needs approval by Red Hat legal. The upstream BouncyCastle tarball includes the patented IDEA algorithm. The tarball in this SRPM has those sources and references removed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
