[Bug 1223990] Review Request: openssl101e - A general purpose cryptography library with TLS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223990



--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
openssl101e-1.0.1e-5.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1223990] Review Request: openssl101e - A general purpose cryptography library with TLS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223990

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2015-12-22 20:50:30



-- 
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 1223990] Review Request: openssl101e - A general purpose cryptography library with TLS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223990



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
openssl101e-1.0.1e-4.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1223990] Review Request: openssl101e - A general purpose cryptography library with TLS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223990

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
openssl101e-1.0.1e-5.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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-EPEL-2015-11c5c57d59

-- 
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 1223990] Review Request: openssl101e - A general purpose cryptography library with TLS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223990

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |MODIFIED



-- 
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 1223990] Review Request: openssl101e - A general purpose cryptography library with TLS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223990



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
openssl101e-1.0.1e-5.el5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 5.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-11c5c57d59

-- 
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 1223990] Review Request: openssl101e - A general purpose cryptography library with TLS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223990

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
openssl101e-1.0.1e-4.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update openssl101e'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1bef47ba4b

-- 
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 1223990] Review Request: openssl101e - A general purpose cryptography library with TLS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223990



--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/openssl101e

-- 
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 1223990] Review Request: openssl101e - A general purpose cryptography library with TLS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223990



--- Comment #13 from Robert Scheck  ---
Andrew, thank you really very much for 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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1223990] Review Request: openssl101e - A general purpose cryptography library with TLS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223990

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |MODIFIED



-- 
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 1223990] Review Request: openssl101e - A general purpose cryptography library with TLS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223990



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
openssl101e-1.0.1e-4.el5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 5.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1bef47ba4b

-- 
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 1223990] Review Request: openssl101e - A general purpose cryptography library with TLS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223990

Andrew Beekhof  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||and...@beekhof.net
  Flags|needinfo?(abeekhof@redhat.c |fedora-review+
   |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 1223990] Review Request: openssl101e - A general purpose cryptography library with TLS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223990

Robert Scheck  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(abeekhof@redhat.c
   ||om)



--- Comment #11 from Robert Scheck  ---
Andrew, sorry for pushing this a bit, but this package makes only sense while 
RHEL/CentOS 5 is still being actively used ;-) What is left to get this review
finished/approved?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1223990] Review Request: openssl101e - A general purpose cryptography library with TLS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223990



--- Comment #10 from Robert Scheck  ---
(In reply to Andrew Beekhof from comment #9)
> - rpmlint is wanting the %changelog version to be '1.0.1e-4.el5.centos'

This only happens as long as mock uses CentOS rather RHEL (while official
EPEL builds happen against RHEL), so this disappears by itself.

> - drop /usr/share/doc/openssl101e-1.0.1e/INSTALL

Done.

> - is c_rehash101e necessary?  is there any case where it should be used
> over c_rehash? perhaps drop it (which would take care of the
> no-manual-page-for-binary) warning.

Everything that uses openssl101e should use c_rehash101e, too. Background:
With OpenSSL 1.0.0 the old-style hashing using MD5 was changed to SHA-1.
But as usually both OpenSSL versions are around, c_rehash101e creates links
in old and current style by default (to avoid breaking compatibility).
However, before OpenSSL 1.0.2 there is no man page for c_rehash anyway in
upstream sources (= no man page for c_rehash in RHEL/CentOS 6).

> With the above changes I would claim this package meets the requirements.

Anything else left? Given the only change is now the removal of INSTALL
from %doc, do you need an updated package or would it be fine to perform
this minor change after import into VCS (but before building, thus this
gets trackable)?

-- 
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 1223990] Review Request: openssl101e - A general purpose cryptography library with TLS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223990



--- Comment #9 from Andrew Beekhof  ---
New output:

openssl101e.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic ->
cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic
openssl101e.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.1e-4
['1.0.1e-4.el5.centos', '1.0.1e-4.centos']
openssl101e.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/.libcrypto.so.10.hmac
openssl101e.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/.libcrypto.so.1.0.1e.hmac
openssl101e.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/.libssl.so.10.hmac
openssl101e.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/.libssl.so.1.0.1e.hmac
openssl101e.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs
/usr/share/doc/openssl101e-1.0.1e/INSTALL
openssl101e-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic
-> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic
openssl101e-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
openssl101e-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
openssl101e-perl.x86_64: W: no-documentation
openssl101e-perl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary c_rehash101e
openssl101e-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic
openssl101e-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
openssl101e.spec:313: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab:
line 313)
openssl101e.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: openssl-1.0.1e-hobbled.tar.xz
5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 16 warnings.


Some nit-picks:

- rpmlint is wanting the %changelog version to be '1.0.1e-4.el5.centos'
- drop /usr/share/doc/openssl101e-1.0.1e/INSTALL
- is c_rehash101e necessary?  is there any case where it should be used over
c_rehash? perhaps drop it (which would take care of the
no-manual-page-for-binary) warning.

The other points:
- spelling-error: these are not errors
- invalid-url: as discussed, there are legal reasons to leave as-is 
- hidden-file-or-dir, only-non-binary-in-usr-lib: I don't think its appropriate
to move these files around in a respin
- no-documentation: I can not find anything in the guidelines that suggests
every sub-package needs docs.  I think we can ignore these as sufficient docs
are included with the main package.


With the above changes I would claim this package meets the requirements.

-- 
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 1223990] Review Request: openssl101e - A general purpose cryptography library with TLS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223990



--- Comment #8 from Robert Scheck  ---
Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/openssl101e.spec
SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/openssl101e-1.0.1e-4.src.rpm

Fixes 'strange-permission' warning and adds the openssl101e man page.

-- 
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 1223990] Review Request: openssl101e - A general purpose cryptography library with TLS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223990



--- Comment #7 from Robert Scheck  ---
(In reply to Andrew Beekhof from comment #4)
> 'invalid-url' is adequately explained in the spec file, although a link to
> the original tarball might be a good.

I don't think Fedora isn't allowed to promote potentially legally encumbered
software directly, this is also why OpenSSL is hubbled (as the comment says).
Given latest Fedora doesn't do this as well, I would raise FE-Legal here, if
you insist to a link/URL to the original tarball.

> Could I get some comment on 'strange-permission' and 'hidden-file-or-dir'
> though?

These files are created by something like fipscheck(1). They are treated as
"hidden" because they start with a "." - which is how the concept works. But
I don't know (and don't see) why there are treated as 'strange-permission'.

(In reply to Andrew Beekhof from comment #6)
> wrt. man pages, does the new one differ much from the existing one? If not,
> perhaps create a simlink so that people can see what it is/does (without
> needing to know the original binary name).

Most of the man pages are the same or at least quite similar from what I can
see. Given the old man pages will be anyway always there, I am not sure if it
makes sense to supply the "new" ones being not really a benefit but having
strange names (because otherwise they would conflict with the main openssl
packages). The online documentation of OpenSSL is more up-to-date through. I
think (if at all) it only makes sense for "man openssl101e" given that is the
only binary being named different where one could expect another man page.

Something else left?

-- 
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 1223990] Review Request: openssl101e - A general purpose cryptography library with TLS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223990



--- Comment #6 from Andrew Beekhof  ---
(In reply to Robert Scheck from comment #5)
> Created attachment 1073906 [details]
> Diff between current OpenSSL from RHEL 6 and this package
> 
> I am a bit confused now: Basically this package is a clone of an existing
> package that theoretically should have been walked through a review already,
> plus a few less changes (as per this diff).

Well... the original version went through a review way back when and
maintainers are supposed to keep their packages compliant with the rules, but
sometimes mistakes are made and rules change.

> 
> What has been removed (because it IMHO doesn't make sense to have conflicts)
> compared to the regular openssl package that is needed for PKI stuff) are
> the man pages and some (redundant) scripts. So in case some packages issues 
> exist, the likely exist in openssl in Fedora (and RHEL), too :-(

Very likely, however new packages need to meet the criteria of the day, or at
least address why an exception is justified, before they can be accepted.

You may want to report them so you can incorporate the fixes or reuse their
justifications.

wrt. man pages, does the new one differ much from the existing one? If not,
perhaps create a simlink so that people can see what it is/does (without
needing to know the original binary name).

-- 
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 1223990] Review Request: openssl101e - A general purpose cryptography library with TLS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223990



--- Comment #5 from Robert Scheck  ---
Created attachment 1073906
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1073906=edit
Diff between current OpenSSL from RHEL 6 and this package

I am a bit confused now: Basically this package is a clone of an existing
package that theoretically should have been walked through a review already,
plus a few less changes (as per this diff).

What has been removed (because it IMHO doesn't make sense to have conflicts)
compared to the regular openssl package that is needed for PKI stuff) are
the man pages and some (redundant) scripts. So in case some packages issues 
exist, the likely exist in openssl in Fedora (and RHEL), too :-(

-- 
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 1223990] Review Request: openssl101e - A general purpose cryptography library with TLS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223990



--- Comment #4 from Andrew Beekhof  ---
Key:
 + pass
 - fail
 ? needs feedback/clarification
 NA Not applicable


MUST
+ rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces.
The output should be posted in the review.

# rpmlint /var/lib/mock/epel-5-x86_64/result/*.rpm ./openssl101e.spec
openssl101e.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic ->
cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic
openssl101e.src: W: strange-permission hobble-openssl 0755L
openssl101e.src: W: strange-permission make-dummy-cert 0755L
openssl101e.src: W: strange-permission renew-dummy-cert 0755L
openssl101e.src:289: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line
289)
openssl101e.src: W: invalid-url Source0: openssl-1.0.1e-hobbled.tar.xz
openssl101e.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic ->
cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic
openssl101e.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.1e-2
['1.0.1e-2.el5.centos', '1.0.1e-2.centos']
openssl101e.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/.libcrypto.so.10.hmac
openssl101e.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/openssl101e-1.0.1e/CHANGES
openssl101e.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/.libcrypto.so.1.0.1e.hmac
openssl101e.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/.libssl.so.10.hmac
openssl101e.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/.libssl.so.1.0.1e.hmac
openssl101e.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openssl101e
openssl101e.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs
/usr/share/doc/openssl101e-1.0.1e/INSTALL
openssl101e-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/openssl-1.0.1e/crypto/bn/bn_const.c
openssl101e-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic
-> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic
openssl101e-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
openssl101e-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
openssl101e-perl.x86_64: W: no-documentation
openssl101e-perl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary c_rehash101e
openssl101e-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic
openssl101e-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
./openssl101e.spec:289: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab:
line 289)
./openssl101e.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: openssl-1.0.1e-hobbled.tar.xz
6 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 25 warnings.

'invalid-url' is adequately explained in the spec file, although a link to the
original tarball might be a good.
It would be nice if 'mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs' was fixed but
'spelling-error' is clearly bogus.
Could I get some comment on 'strange-permission' and 'hidden-file-or-dir'
though?
Some other minor cleanups seem to be called for.


+ The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .

Consistent with the section on 'Multiple packages with the same base name'

+ The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. 
+ The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
+ The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
+ The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. 
+ 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 must be included in %license.
+ The spec file must be written in American English. 
+ The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 
+ The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is
used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.

Consistent with 'When Upstream uses Prohibited Code'

+  The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least
one primary architecture. 
NA If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. NA Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed
in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work
on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. 
+ All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
+ The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
+ Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files
(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call

[Bug 1223990] Review Request: openssl101e - A general purpose cryptography library with TLS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223990



--- Comment #3 from Robert Scheck  ---
Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/openssl101e.spec
SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/openssl101e-1.0.1e-3.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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1223990] Review Request: openssl101e - A general purpose cryptography library with TLS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223990



--- Comment #2 from Andrew Beekhof  ---
Didn't quote finish the review today. Will pick up again on Monday.

-- 
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 1223990] Review Request: openssl101e - A general purpose cryptography library with TLS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223990

Andrew Beekhof  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||abeek...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|abeek...@redhat.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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1223990] Review Request: openssl101e - A general purpose cryptography library with TLS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223990



--- Comment #1 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de ---
Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/openssl101e.spec
SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/openssl101e-1.0.1e-2.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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review