[Bug 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2018-04-08 00:45:17



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
bouncycastle1.58-1.58-1.el6, canl-java-2.5.0-2.el6, jglobus-2.1.0-5.el6,
voms-api-java-3.3.0-1.el6, voms-clients-java-3.3.0-1.el6 has been pushed to the
Fedora EPEL 6 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

[Bug 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
bouncycastle1.58-1.58-1.el6, canl-java-2.5.0-2.el6, jglobus-2.1.0-5.el6,
voms-api-java-3.3.0-1.el6, voms-clients-java-3.3.0-1.el6 has been pushed to the
Fedora EPEL 6 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-2018-71db8f6f28

-- 
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 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134

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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
bouncycastle1.58-1.58-1.el6 canl-java-2.5.0-2.el6 jglobus-2.1.0-5.el6
voms-api-java-3.3.0-1.el6 voms-clients-java-3.3.0-1.el6 has been submitted as
an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-71db8f6f28

-- 
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 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
bouncycastle1.58-1.58-1.el6, canl-java-2.5.0-2.el6, jglobus-2.1.0-5.el6,
voms-api-java-3.2.0-7.el6, voms-clients-java-3.0.7-6.el6 has been pushed to the
Fedora EPEL 6 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-2018-71db8f6f28

-- 
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 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
bouncycastle1.58-1.58-1.el6 canl-java-2.5.0-2.el6 jglobus-2.1.0-5.el6
voms-api-java-3.2.0-7.el6 voms-clients-java-3.0.7-6.el6 has been submitted as
an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-71db8f6f28

-- 
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 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134



--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bouncycastle1.58. You may commit to the
branch "el6" in about 10 minutes.

-- 
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 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134

Mattias Ellert  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Component|Package Review  |Package Review
Version|rawhide |el6
Product|Fedora  |Fedora EPEL



-- 
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 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Package approved then.

-- 
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 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134



--- Comment #2 from Mattias Ellert  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
> There's a few fedora-review errors but I don't know how pertinent they are
> regarding EPEL6 packaging, you're using old macros instead of
> %mvn_artifact/%mvn_install because they don't exist in EPEL6?

Correct.

The %mvn_artifact/%mvn_install macros can be used in EPEL7 (where they are part
of the maven-local package) but not in EPEL6.

In EPEL6 the old %add_maven_depmap macro (used in Fedora before
%mvn_artifact/%mvn_install were introduced) does not exist. The even older
%add_to_maven_depmap/%update_maven_depmap macros must be used instead.

The Requires: jpackage-utils is not added automatically to javadoc packages in
EPEL6.

The zero-length file rpmlint complains about is on purpose. All information is
contained in the filename, and the file's content is never read. Compare with
the file in the standard non-compat bouncycastle package (either in Fedora or
EPEL):

$ ls -l
/etc/java/security/security.d/2000-org.bouncycastle.jce.provider.BouncyCastleProvider
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 0 19 aug 04.26
/etc/java/security/security.d/2000-org.bouncycastle.jce.provider.BouncyCastleProvider

> Issues:
> ===
> - POM files have correct Maven mapping
>   Note: Old style Maven package found, no add_maven_depmap calls found but
>   POM files present
>   See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Maven_pom.xml_files
> - Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is being used
> - Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
>   Note: jpackage-utils requires are automatically generated by the
>   buildsystem
>   See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java

> Rpmlint
> ---
> Checking: bouncycastle1.58-1.58-1.el6.noarch.rpm
>   bouncycastle1.58-pkix-1.58-1.el6.noarch.rpm
>   bouncycastle1.58-pg-1.58-1.el6.noarch.rpm
>   bouncycastle1.58-mail-1.58-1.el6.noarch.rpm
>   bouncycastle1.58-tls-1.58-1.el6.noarch.rpm
>   bouncycastle1.58-javadoc-1.58-1.el6.noarch.rpm
>   bouncycastle1.58-1.58-1.el6.src.rpm
> bouncycastle1.58.noarch: E: zero-length
> /etc/java/security/security.d/2158-org.bouncycastle.jce.provider.
> BouncyCastleProvider
> 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

-- 
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 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
There's a few fedora-review errors but I don't know how pertinent they are
regarding EPEL6 packaging, you're using old macros instead of
%mvn_artifact/%mvn_install because they don't exist in EPEL6?


Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- POM files have correct Maven mapping
  Note: Old style Maven package found, no add_maven_depmap calls found but
  POM files present
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Maven_pom.xml_files
- Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is being used
- Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
  Note: jpackage-utils requires are automatically generated by the
  buildsystem
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "CC0", "*No copyright* Apache (v1.1)",
 "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 5580 files
 have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/bouncycastle1.58/review-
 bouncycastle1.58/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven2/poms, /usr/share/maven2,
 /etc/maven/fragments
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/maven,
 /usr/share/maven2/poms, /etc/maven/fragments, /usr/share/maven2
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 296960 bytes in 12 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)

Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it