[Bug 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-03-26 12:27:53 -- 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 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 --- Comment #27 from Michael J. Chudobiak m...@avtechpulse.com --- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pwout...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(pwouters@redhat.c ||om) -- 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 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(pwouters@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #25 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com --- done: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5841 -- 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 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 --- Comment #26 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Not blocked, rawhide build complete. -- 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 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 --- Comment #23 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com --- The builds are failing because tinyca2 seems to be manually blacklisted in the build system. I had pinged on #fedora-admin about this. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6265706 Descendants build buildSRPMFromSCM (/tinyca2:599f1d67fcf53c3dac58676950f618cc9a6449b1) Waiting?no Awaited?no Priority20 Weight0.20 Result BuildError: package tinyca2 is blocked for tag f20-updates-candidate Output -- 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 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 --- Comment #24 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com --- To fix this, you should file a bug at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ -- 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 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 --- Comment #21 from Michael J. Chudobiak m...@avtechpulse.com --- Sorry to be a pest, but are the rpms available somewhere now? I don't see them anywhere... -- 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 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 --- Comment #22 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- There have been a few commits recently, http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/tinyca2.git/log/ but no (recent) builds have been made yet, http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=3987 -- 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 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 --- Comment #20 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com --- oops. totally missed the ball on this. rpms coming right up -- 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 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 --- Comment #19 from Michael J. Chudobiak m...@avtechpulse.com --- So... is someone going to build some rpms? -- 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 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 --- Comment #18 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #17 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: tinyca2 New Branches: f20 f19 f18 el6 Owners: pwouters InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 --- Comment #16 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Oh, this is an unretirement. I've unretired devel, please submit a Package Change request for the other branches. Sorry for the extra work. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #15 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: tinyca2 Short Description: TinyCA graphical openssl based CA Owners: pwouters Branches: f20 f19 f18 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- No FAS account for owner specified. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||limburg...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(limburgher@gmail. ||com) fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com --- Jon Ciesle: There is an owner specified? pwouters? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 --- Comment #12 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Patrick Uiterwijk from comment #11) Jon Ciesle: There is an owner specified? pwouters? Ciesla* -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(limburgher@gmail. | |com)| --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- The request is misformatted. I think the long description being in the short description field is the problem. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Unsetting flag. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 --- Comment #6 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/tinyca2/tinyca2.spec SRPM URL:ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/tinyca2/tinyca2-0.7.6-0.9.20070611.fc19.src.rpm * Sun Oct 13 2013 Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com - 0.7.6-0.10.20070611 - Filter out bogus Requires/Provides - clean some EL5 leftover items It's now: Provides: config(tinyca2) = 0.7.6-0.10.20070611.fc19 perl(CA) tinyca = 0.7.6-0.10.20070611.fc19 tinyca2 = 0.7.6-0.10.20070611.fc19 Requires: /usr/bin/perl perl(Getopt::Long) perl(Gtk2) perl(Gtk2::SimpleMenu) perl(IO::Select) perl(IPC::Open3) perl(Locale::gettext) perl(MIME::Base64) perl(OpenSSL) perl(Time::Local) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com --- Looks fine to me, and all points indicated are fixed. APPROVED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: tinyca2 Short Description: TinyCA2 is a graphical tool written in Perl/Gtk to manage a small Certification Authority (CA) using openssl. TinyCA supports - creation and revocation of x509 - S/MIME certificates. - PKCS#10 requests. - exporting certificates as PEM, DER, TXT, and PKCS#12. - server certificates for use in web servers, email servers, IPsec, and more. - client certificates for use in web browsers, email clients, IPsec, and more. - creation and management of SubCAs Owners: pwouters Branches: f20 f19 f18 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 --- Comment #9 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- The Short description field here should basically match the Summary: field in the .spec file and Subject of this review. For example, Short Description: TinyCA graphical openssl based CA (though IMO, repeating the pkg name TinyCA here is redundant) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com ---
You have not removed all el5 compat items:
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
and
%install
rm -rf %{buildroot}
About 6: I know that upstream is dead, but could you add a comment to the spec
where the respective patches are for? (or one comment These are for perl
compatibility)?
About 3: Sure. I thought you needed to have it in a seperate file, but going
through the guidelines proved me wrong :)
10) Well, this could cause some serious breakage if some application says
Requires: Perl(GUI), and the user gets tinyca2 instead of the package
providing perl(GUI), so I think you would need to change that.
This is a known problem, and even has its own section in the Perl packaging
guidelines on how to do this:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#Filtering_Requires_and_Provides
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 --- Comment #1 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com --- This is a package revival. According to dead.package: This package was retired due to no active owner on 2011-02-23 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||puiterw...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|puiterw...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com --- I will review this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384
Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
1. Buildroot, rm -rf $BUILDROOT and %clean are present: is it your intention to
also package for EL5?
If not, please remove them
2. Please use just one style of variables: either $BUILDROOT style or
%{_man_dir} style
3. Please move the desktop file to a source file instead of writing it from the
spec
4. Needs the explicit perl requires:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#Versioned_MODULE_COMPAT_Requires
5. You should ask upstream to add license text
6. Please add justification to patches, and try to send them upstream
7. Please add info or url on how to get Source tarball
8. Please use %global instead of %define
9. Please fix the locales:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files
10. Final provides seem insane: why is it providing perl(CA), perl(GUI),
amongst others?
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: 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 %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), Unknown or generated.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[!]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package 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
Perl:
[!]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version)) missing?
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer
[Bug 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 --- Comment #4 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/tinyca2/tinyca2.spec SRPM URL:ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/tinyca2/tinyca2-0.7.6-0.9.20070611.fc19.src.rpm * Sat Oct 12 2013 Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com - 0.7.6-0.9.20070611 - cleanup macro style, remove el5 compat items, use global instead of define - Clean vendor - Fixup perl requires - Fixup locale handling - Preserve timestamps with install - Fixup mixed tab/spaces This addresses 1) 2) 4) 8) and 9) For 5) 6) and 7) well, upstream has been dead since 2007 :) These patches are mostly to make things work on newer versions of perl. 3) Why should it be a separate file? (also this way if we change bindir again it remains working :) 10) I agree it is a bit silly. But its automatically generated based on where it is installed. Is it worth changing this? That would be a big change and upstream would never merge it in. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
