[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System --- libb64-1.2-3.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System --- libb64-1.2-3.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-11-17 21:57:08 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System --- libb64-1.2-3.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- libb64-1.2-3.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-ea295e864d -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- libb64-1.2-3.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2018-e39db43366 -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- libb64-1.2-3.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2018-48c5becff8 -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- libb64-1.2-3.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-ea295e864d -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- libb64-1.2-3.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-e39db43366 -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- libb64-1.2-3.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-48c5becff8 -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 --- Comment #18 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libb64 -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 --- Comment #17 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- Thanks for the review, Robert. SCM requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/8768 -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #16 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package is approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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: "Public domain", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Public
domain". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libb64/review-
libb64/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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.
[x]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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.
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 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]: 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
present.
Note: Package has .a files: libb64-devel.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
libb64-devel , libb64-tools , libb64-debugsource
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 --- Comment #15 from Robert-André Mauchin --- (In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #14) > (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #13) > > The license field should be CC0. The website links to Creative Commons Zero > > 1.0 Universal. > > Hrm, but he goes "This work is released into the Public Domain.", and the > link there goes to a "retired license": > https://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/. This is not the CC0 > universal license which is here: > https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode > > CC0 etc are also content licenses > > Isn't it OK to use Public Domain here, since that is the intention of the > author? Ah you're right. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 --- Comment #14 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #13) > The license field should be CC0. The website links to Creative Commons Zero > 1.0 Universal. Hrm, but he goes "This work is released into the Public Domain.", and the link there goes to a "retired license": https://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/. This is not the CC0 universal license which is here: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode CC0 etc are also content licenses Isn't it OK to use Public Domain here, since that is the intention of the author? -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #13 from Robert-André Mauchin --- The license field should be CC0. The website links to Creative Commons Zero 1.0 Universal. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||libb64 -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 --- Comment #12 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- Hello, Would either of you be able to do the formal review for libb64 here? I'll request a review swap on the devel list again, otherwise. Cheers, Ankur -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 --- Comment #11 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- (In reply to Artur Iwicki from comment #10) > From what I've seen, libraries in Fedora usually are divided like this: > - main package: stuff needed for running executables using the lib > - devel: headers > - static: stuff needed for static compilation > - tools: any library-related executables > As such, my personal suggestion would be to make the -devel package provide > the -static package (already done from what I see), put the binary in > -tools, and omit the main package. Done. Updated spec/srpm: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libb64/libb64.spec https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libb64/libb64-1.2-3.fc29.src.rpm Scratch builds: F30: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30721323 F29: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30721330 -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 --- Comment #10 from Artur Iwicki --- From what I've seen, libraries in Fedora usually are divided like this: - main package: stuff needed for running executables using the lib - devel: headers - static: stuff needed for static compilation - tools: any library-related executables As such, my personal suggestion would be to make the -devel package provide the -static package (already done from what I see), put the binary in -tools, and omit the main package. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
--- Comment #9 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #8)
> > Can you please be more clear on what I'm missing here? Is it the addition of
> > -O3 to the flags? I've corrected that bit now, but you'll have to point out
> > what else I'm missing, I'm afraid.
>
> Yes, -O3 and possibly more flags that override Fedora's defaults. The
> guidelines offer multiple choices how to handle such a case. Removing -O3 is
> the most plausible option.
I've removed the flags that upstream was adding.
>
>
> > I've now copied bits from wikipedia too. How is this?
>
> The primary issue remains. The base package "libb64" does not contain a
> library. It also doesn't contain the source code. It contains only the
> command-line executable with nothing in the %description commenting on it or
> its strengths compared with the tool from coreutils.
>
> Is the primary interest in the library and API or the executable? I
> understand that you need the lib as buildreq for other packages, but if
> shipping the tool in a separate non-devel package starting with a "lib"
> prefix in its name, the package description should mention that.
>
> Note that you could also build a "libb64-tools" subpackage instead, even if
> it's only a single executable.
I've updated the description of the main package to mention that it includes
the tool, and that users should install the -devel package if they wish to
develop using the library:
"This package provides the %{name}-b64 binary tool for encoding to and decoding
from the Base64 scheme. Please install the %{name}-devel package to develop
software using %{name}."
Do you think that's clear enough? If not, I'll put the binary into a separate
-tools subpackage.
Updated spec/srpm:
https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libb64/libb64.spec
https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libb64/libb64-1.2-3.fc29.src.rpm
Cheers,
Ankur
--
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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 --- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt --- > Can you please be more clear on what I'm missing here? Is it the addition of > -O3 to the flags? I've corrected that bit now, but you'll have to point out > what else I'm missing, I'm afraid. Yes, -O3 and possibly more flags that override Fedora's defaults. The guidelines offer multiple choices how to handle such a case. Removing -O3 is the most plausible option. > I've now copied bits from wikipedia too. How is this? The primary issue remains. The base package "libb64" does not contain a library. It also doesn't contain the source code. It contains only the command-line executable with nothing in the %description commenting on it or its strengths compared with the tool from coreutils. Is the primary interest in the library and API or the executable? I understand that you need the lib as buildreq for other packages, but if shipping the tool in a separate non-devel package starting with a "lib" prefix in its name, the package description should mention that. Note that you could also build a "libb64-tools" subpackage instead, even if it's only a single executable. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 --- Comment #7 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- (In reply to Manas Mangaonkar (Pac23) from comment #6) > libb64.x86_64: - can you include a man page for the binary libb64-base64 Not really. Upstream doesn't provide one :( > also a zero length error in the libb64/TODO Removed. > > devel.x86_64 lacks documentation aswell. Again, upstream does not provide any, so there is none to include :( > > Package builds fine otherwise. 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 Manas Mangaonkar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manasmangaon...@gmail.com --- Comment #6 from Manas Mangaonkar --- libb64.x86_64: - can you include a man page for the binary libb64-base64 also a zero length error in the libb64/TODO devel.x86_64 lacks documentation aswell. Package builds fine otherwise. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 --- Comment #5 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #4) > * /usr/bin/base64 conflicts with coreutils [!] Ugh, and it seems to do the exact same thing too. However, coreutils does not provide the headers or the lib that this provides (and biosig needs). Would it be OK to rename this binary to differentiate it from the one coreutils provides? $ sudo dnf whatprovides '*/cencode.h' Io-language-devel-2015-0.e64ff9.fc29.13.i686 : Development files for Io-language Repo: fedora Matched from: Filename: /usr/include/io/cencode.h Io-language-devel-2015-0.e64ff9.fc29.13.x86_64 : Development files for Io-language Repo: fedora Matched from: Filename: /usr/include/io/cencode.h > > > * The explicit dependencies are dubious: > > 1) The -devel subpackage does not need the base package, since it is > complete due to headers *and* the static lib. Updated. > > 2) The license file does not need to be duplicated as long as the -devel > package explicitly requires the base package, which also contains the same > license file. It doesn't require the base package now, so I'll leave that in here. > > > * Package %summary and %description are not clear yet IMO. The base package > describes a library. Yet it only contains an executable. Is this better, do you think? "Tool for fast encoding/decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format" > The %description > continues with a very brief comment on "Base64" without telling what > functionality is provided by this package. This is all upstream says: "libb64 is a library of ANSI C routines for fast encoding/decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format. C++ wrappers are included, as well as the source code for standalone encoding and decoding executables. " I've now copied bits from wikipedia too. How is this? "Base64 is a group of similar binary-to-text encoding schemes that represent binary data in an ASCII string format by translating it into a radix-64 representation. The term Base64 originates from a specific MIME content transfer encoding. Each Base64 digit represents exactly 6 bits of data. Three 8-bit bytes (i.e., a total of 24 bits) can therefore be represented by four 6-bit Base64 digits. Base64 uses a subset of displayable ASCII characters, and is therefore a useful encoding for storing binary data in a text file, such as XML, or sending binary data over text-only email. libb64 is a library of ANSI C routines for fast encoding/decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format. C++ wrappers are included, as well as the source code for standalone encoding and decoding executables. " > > > > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/6540/30656540/build.log > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags Can you please be more clear on what I'm missing here? Is it the addition of -O3 to the flags? I've corrected that bit now, but you'll have to point out what else I'm missing, I'm afraid. Updated spec/srpm: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libb64/libb64.spec https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libb64/libb64-1.2-3.fc29.src.rpm Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30684654 Cheers, Ankur -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 --- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt --- * /usr/bin/base64 conflicts with coreutils [!] * The explicit dependencies are dubious: 1) The -devel subpackage does not need the base package, since it is complete due to headers *and* the static lib. 2) The license file does not need to be duplicated as long as the -devel package explicitly requires the base package, which also contains the same license file. * Package %summary and %description are not clear yet IMO. The base package describes a library. Yet it only contains an executable. The %description continues with a very brief comment on "Base64" without telling what functionality is provided by this package. > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/6540/30656540/build.log https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
--- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
(In reply to Artur Iwicki from comment #2)
> >%global _description %{expand: \
> Any particular reason for putting the description into a macro?
Sorry--left over from my spec template. Comes in handy when there are multiple
sub packages :)
>
> >export "CFLAGS=%{optflags}"
> >export "CXXFLAGS=%{optflags}"
> >export "LDFLAGS=%{build_ldflags}"
> Use "%set_build_flags" instead.
Ah, nice one. Done!
New spec/srpm:
https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libb64/libb64.spec
https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libb64/libb64-1.2-2.fc29.src.rpm
Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30656539
Thanks,
Ankur
--
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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
Artur Iwicki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fed...@svgames.pl
--- Comment #2 from Artur Iwicki ---
>%global _description %{expand: \
Any particular reason for putting the description into a macro?
>export "CFLAGS=%{optflags}"
>export "CXXFLAGS=%{optflags}"
>export "LDFLAGS=%{build_ldflags}"
Use "%set_build_flags" 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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1276941 (fedora-neuro) --- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- (Required for biosig: https://pagure.io/neuro-sig/NeuroFedora/issue/56) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276941 [Bug 1276941] Fedora NeuroImaging and NeuroScience tracking 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
