[Bug 1290337] Review Request: ed25519-java - Implementation of EdDSA ( Ed25519) in Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290337

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||ed25519-java-0.1.0-1.fc26
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-09-26 09:07:19



--- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo  ---
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15809314

-- 
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 1290337] Review Request: ed25519-java - Implementation of EdDSA ( Ed25519) in Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290337



--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/ed25519-java

-- 
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 1290337] Review Request: ed25519-java - Implementation of EdDSA ( Ed25519) in Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290337

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183
[Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
-- 
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 1290337] Review Request: ed25519-java - Implementation of EdDSA ( Ed25519) in Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290337



--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo  ---
Thanks for the review!

create new SCM request:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/7937

-- 
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 1290337] Review Request: ed25519-java - Implementation of EdDSA ( Ed25519) in Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290337

Christoph Junghans  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Christoph Junghans  ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #3)
> (In reply to Christoph Junghans from comment #2)
> > 3 questions:
> > - Does it make sense to install the javadoc without the actual package -
> > Missing "Require:"?
> No
> > [?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
> >  Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ed25519
> >  -java-javadoc
> 
> Requires are handled by our: java(packages-)tools
> and this is a noarch package. for refrerences see:
> https://fedora-java.github.io/howto/latest/#maven
Thanks for the explanation.

> 
> > [?]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
> >  when building with ant
> 
> > - pom.xml isn't packaged, why?
> 
> is not true see "Provides" mvn(net.i2p.crypto:eddsa:pom:)
Found it /usr/share/maven-poms/ed25519-java.pom

> 
> > [?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
> 
> > - There seem to be tests in test/net/i2p/crypto/eddsa, but no %check
> 
> This is a maven build style and "%check" is useless only in this case (and
> with gradle)
I see!

Thanks for all the pointers, package approved.

-- 
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 1290337] Review Request: ed25519-java - Implementation of EdDSA ( Ed25519) in Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290337



--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Christoph Junghans from comment #2)
> 3 questions:
> - Does it make sense to install the javadoc without the actual package -
> Missing "Require:"?
No
> [?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
>  Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ed25519
>  -java-javadoc

Requires are handled by our: java(packages-)tools
and this is a noarch package. for refrerences see:
https://fedora-java.github.io/howto/latest/#maven

> [?]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
>  when building with ant

> - pom.xml isn't packaged, why?

is not true see "Provides" mvn(net.i2p.crypto:eddsa:pom:)

> [?]: %check is present and all tests pass.

> - There seem to be tests in test/net/i2p/crypto/eddsa, but no %check

This is a maven build style and "%check" is useless only in this case (and with
gradle)


> Requires
> 
> ed25519-java (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
> java-headless
> javapackages-tools
> 
> ed25519-java-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
> javapackages-tools
> 
> 
> 
> Provides
> 
> ed25519-java:
> ed25519-java
> mvn(net.i2p.crypto:eddsa)
> mvn(net.i2p.crypto:eddsa:pom:)
> osgi(net.i2p.crypto.eddsa)
>

-- 
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 1290337] Review Request: ed25519-java - Implementation of EdDSA ( Ed25519) in Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290337



--- Comment #2 from Christoph Junghans  ---
3 questions:
- Does it make sense to install the javadoc without the actual package -
Missing "Require:"?
- pom.xml isn't packaged, why?
- There seem to be tests in test/net/i2p/crypto/eddsa, but no %check

Detailed Package Review
===

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= 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.
[X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[X]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: 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]: 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
 Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It
 is pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
 subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)

Maven:
[?]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
 when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
 utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[-]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ed25519
 -java-javadoc
[X]: Package functions as 

[Bug 1290337] Review Request: ed25519-java - Implementation of EdDSA ( Ed25519) in Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290337

Christoph Junghans  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



-- 
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 1290337] Review Request: ed25519-java - Implementation of EdDSA ( Ed25519) in Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290337

Christoph Junghans  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jungh...@votca.org
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jungh...@votca.org
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
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 1290337] Review Request: ed25519-java - Implementation of EdDSA ( Ed25519) in Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290337



--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo  ---
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/ed25519-java.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/ed25519-java-0.1.0-1.fc24.src.rpm

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1290337] Review Request: ed25519-java - Implementation of EdDSA (Ed25519) in Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290337

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183
[Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1290337] Review Request: ed25519-java - Implementation of EdDSA (Ed25519) in Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290337

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1290342




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342
[Bug 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519
and Curve25518
-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1290337] Review Request: ed25519-java - Implementation of EdDSA (Ed25519) in Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290337

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1290344




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290344
[Bug 1290344] sshj-0.15.0 is available
-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review