[Bug 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||ecc-25519-java-1.0.3-1.fc26
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-11-28 15:53:03



--- Comment #24 from gil cattaneo  ---
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16660852

-- 
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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342



--- Comment #23 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/ecc-25519-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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342

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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342



--- Comment #22 from gil cattaneo  ---
Thanks for the review!

create new SCM requests:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/8993

-- 
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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342

Tomas Repik  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #21 from Tomas Repik  ---
Thanks you did a good job!

-- 
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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342



--- Comment #20 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Tomas Repik from comment #19)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #18)
> > I should add a comment in the spec file?
> > it is not obvious its use?
> 
> I mean to find/replace strings in source files one usually uses sed. I've
> seen perl used for the first time here. I can't see the advantage of using
> perl over using standard sed. If there was a specific reson to use perl and
> thus add a build dependency, just mention it somewhere. Otherwise, if there
> was no advantage of using perl please consider rewriting it with sed.
Done
> Thanks

Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/ecc-25519-java.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/ecc-25519-java-1.0.3-1.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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342



--- Comment #19 from Tomas Repik  ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #18)
> I should add a comment in the spec file?
> it is not obvious its use?

I mean to find/replace strings in source files one usually uses sed. I've seen
perl used for the first time here. I can't see the advantage of using perl over
using standard sed. If there was a specific reson to use perl and thus add a
build dependency, just mention it somewhere. Otherwise, if there was no
advantage of using perl please consider rewriting it with sed.

Thanks

-- 
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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342



--- Comment #18 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Tomas Repik from comment #17)


> ISSUES
> ==
> [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
> - please justify the use of perl (in spec also)

I should add a comment in the spec file?
it is not obvious its use?

> QUESTIONS
> =
> Are these two the only sources the package compiles?
> ECC-25519-Java/src/main/java/net/vrallev/java/ecc/Ecc25519Helper.java
> ECC-25519-Java/src/main/java/net/vrallev/java/ecc/KeyHolder.java

Yes, bundled code is removed in the  %prep section
Originally this library should contain:
ECC-25519-Java/src/main/java/djb curve25519-java or org.zeromq:curve25519-java
ECC-25519-Java/src/main/java/net/i2p ed25519-java or net.i2p.crypto:eddsa:0.1.0

thanks

-- 
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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342



--- Comment #17 from Tomas Repik  ---
Package Review
==

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

ISSUES
==
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
- please justify the use of perl (in spec also)

QUESTIONS
=
Are these two the only sources the package compiles?
ECC-25519-Java/src/main/java/net/vrallev/java/ecc/Ecc25519Helper.java
ECC-25519-Java/src/main/java/net/vrallev/java/ecc/KeyHolder.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.
[?]: 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.
[?]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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.
[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
[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:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
 when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used

= 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.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: 

[Bug 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342

Tomas Repik  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tre...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tre...@redhat.com
  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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|kwiz...@gmail.com   |nob...@fedoraproject.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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342



--- Comment #16 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  ---
Just to be clear on rpmdev-newspec, I'm not saying that you must use it.
You can adapt your current tools to use this scheme instead.

-- 
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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342



--- Comment #15 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #14)
> (In reply to Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) from comment #13)
> > (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #10)
> > 
> > > > - You are missing a "-" between email and package EVR in changelog. 
> > > > rpmlint
> > > > haven't found it and I don't expect it's a hard requirement. But at 
> > > > least
> > > > that the format used by the rpmdev-bumpspec tool
> > > 
> > > I dont want use "-" in my spec file, and i am not interested to use that 
> > > tool
> > 
> > It's a weird answer. I wouldn't have expected it.
> > The problem is that other maintainers and provenpackager will use theses
> > tools, or even use parser that may break if the "-" isn't found.
> > Above all it's improving readability. 
> 
> NOT is a problem, this is because the people you've indicated you have no
> problems to make changes in my spec files. and I repeat I am not interested
> just about aesthetics without any functionality

I'm afraid you don't consider readability as the feature. There is something
weird reading most of your spec changelogs. It makes eyes bleeding because
something is missing, until one discover what it is.

> > > > - What the point to use /usr/bin/perl over perl (as package) directly ? 
> > > > or
> > > > at least the appropriate macro ?
> > > 
> > > I need only the binary for change the build scripts ...
> > okay, but %{_bindir} should be used here why not using the macro ?
> > Also I don't think perl packaging will change it's packaging scheme not to
> > have the perl binary in the main perl package.
> Done
> > That been said, I would use sed (that is in the default buildroot) instead
> > to avoid a dependency on perl (that is no more in the default buildroot).

> Not in my spec file, unless it is forbidden to use in some guideline
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Build_Root_Without_Perl
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Scripting_inside_of_spec_files

Given that perl isn't in the default buildroot anymore, it will simplify the
dependency graph.

If you can show me a rationale argument for both issues, I'm okay to approve
the package. Alternative is that I will resign from review and you will find a
new reviewer.

-- 
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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342



--- Comment #14 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) from comment #13)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #10)
> 
> > > - You are missing a "-" between email and package EVR in changelog. 
> > > rpmlint
> > > haven't found it and I don't expect it's a hard requirement. But at least
> > > that the format used by the rpmdev-bumpspec tool
> > 
> > I dont want use "-" in my spec file, and i am not interested to use that 
> > tool
> 
> It's a weird answer. I wouldn't have expected it.
> The problem is that other maintainers and provenpackager will use theses
> tools, or even use parser that may break if the "-" isn't found.
> Above all it's improving readability. 

NOT is a problem, this is because the people you've indicated you have no
problems to make changes in my spec files. and I repeat I am not interested
just about aesthetics without any functionality

> > > - What the point to use /usr/bin/perl over perl (as package) directly ? or
> > > at least the appropriate macro ?
> > 
> > I need only the binary for change the build scripts ...
> okay, but %{_bindir} should be used here why not using the macro ?
> Also I don't think perl packaging will change it's packaging scheme not to
> have the perl binary in the main perl package.
Done
> That been said, I would use sed (that is in the default buildroot) instead
> to avoid a dependency on perl (that is no more in the default buildroot).

Not in my spec file, unless it is forbidden to use in some guideline

Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/ecc-25519-java.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/ecc-25519-java-1.0.3-1.fc24.src.rpm

- use "%{_bindir}" macro

-- 
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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342

Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(kwiz...@gmail.com |
   |)   |



--- Comment #13 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #10)

> > - You are missing a "-" between email and package EVR in changelog. rpmlint
> > haven't found it and I don't expect it's a hard requirement. But at least
> > that the format used by the rpmdev-bumpspec tool
> 
> I dont want use "-" in my spec file, and i am not interested to use that tool

It's a weird answer. I wouldn't have expected it.
The problem is that other maintainers and provenpackager will use theses tools,
or even use parser that may break if the "-" isn't found.
Above all it's improving readability. 

> > - What the point to use /usr/bin/perl over perl (as package) directly ? or
> > at least the appropriate macro ?
> 
> I need only the binary for change the build scripts ...
okay, but %{_bindir} should be used here why not using the macro ?
Also I don't think perl packaging will change it's packaging scheme not to have
the perl binary in the main perl package.

That been said, I would use sed (that is in the default buildroot) instead to
avoid a dependency on perl (that is no more in the default buildroot).

-- 
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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(kwiz...@gmail.com
   ||)



--- Comment #12 from gil cattaneo  ---
@Nicolas Please, can you change fedora-review field with "+"

-- 
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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo+   |



--- Comment #11 from gil cattaneo  ---
Please,

-- 
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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342



--- Comment #10 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) from comment #9)


> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>  Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
>  found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache
>  (v2.0)". 75 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
>  licensecheck in /home/builder/1290342-ecc-25519-java/licensecheck.txt

"75 files have unknown license" refer to these files?

./ECC-25519-Android/ecc-25519/src/main/java/com/github/dazoe/android/Ed25519.java
/ECC-25519-Android*/ecc-25519/src/main/jni/*
 i don't want import these features



> [!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
for me is ok

> [?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
> [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
>  names).







> [-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
 test suite are executed as primary task, is not necessary add useless
 "sections"

> [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
>  files.
yes handled by our java tools



> Summary:
> - I'm not sure we can consider the license is public domain since few
> sources files do not contains a license header. I know this would fall under
> the definition of public domain in the guideline. But would be contradicted
> by: 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Public_Domain
> I think that the intention of the author is to have everything licensed
> under ASL 2.0 but it would requires clarification.

Not necessary, under Public Domain license are those files that i remove as
bundled code ECC-25519-Java/src/main/java/djb

> - You are missing a "-" between email and package EVR in changelog. rpmlint
> haven't found it and I don't expect it's a hard requirement. But at least
> that the format used by the rpmdev-bumpspec tool

I dont want use "-" in my spec file, and i am not interested to use that tool

> - What the point to use /usr/bin/perl over perl (as package) directly ? or
> at least the appropriate macro ?

I need only the binary for change the build scripts ...

> None of theses issues are blocker, so it should be okay

Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/ecc-25519-java.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/ecc-25519-java-1.0.3-1.fc24.src.rpm

- fix license field

-- 
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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342

Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(kwiz...@gmail.com |fedora-review? needinfo+
   |)   |



--- Comment #9 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java
  to get additional checks


= 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache
 (v2.0)". 75 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/builder/1290342-ecc-25519-java/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: 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
[?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: 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 2 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 ecc-25519-java-javadoc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check 

[Bug 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342



--- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo  ---
@Nicolas can you continue with the 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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(kwiz...@gmail.com
   ||)



-- 
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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342

Tom "spot" Callaway  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On|182235 (FE-Legal)   |



--- Comment #7 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
The curves in this implementation are permissible for Fedora. Lifting FE-Legal.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235
[Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
-- 
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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342



--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo  ---
Any new news?

-- 
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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342

Tom "spot" Callaway  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tcall...@redhat.com



--- Comment #5 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
I'm looking into this.

-- 
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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342

Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||kwiz...@gmail.com
 Depends On||182235 (FE-Legal)
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kwiz...@gmail.com



--- Comment #4 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  ---
I'm taking the review.
But first I wonder why this isn't part of the standard openjdk distribution.
Is there any issue with this implementation of the ECC algo ?

Blocking FE-Legal about this.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235
[Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
-- 
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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342



--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo  ---
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/ecc-25519-java.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/ecc-25519-java-1.0.3-1.fc24.src.rpm

- update to 1.0.3

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15809989

-- 
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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342
Bug 1290342 depends on bug 1290339, which changed state.

Bug 1290339 Summary: Review Request: curve25519-java - Implementation of 
Curve25519 in Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290339

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



-- 
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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342
Bug 1290342 depends on bug 1290337, which changed state.

Bug 1290337 Summary: Review Request: ed25519-java - Implementation of EdDSA 
(Ed25519) in Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290337

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



-- 
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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342



--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo  ---
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/ecc-25519-java.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/ecc-25519-java-1.0.1-1.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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342



--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
jerboaa's scratch build of
java-1.8.0-openjdk?#d28765c33d068af9ff432a92443b93beeef88a22 for
git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/java-1.8.0-openjdk?#d28765c33d068af9ff432a92443b93beeef88a22
and rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12181621

-- 
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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342

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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1290339, 1290337




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290337
[Bug 1290337] Review Request: ed25519-java - Implementation of EdDSA
(Ed25519) in Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290339
[Bug 1290339] Review Request: curve25519-java - Implementation of
Curve25519 in 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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342

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