https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
--- Comment #30 from Andrew Bauer ---
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #28)
> I still don't think you understand the statement in the policy here (and the
> people in the security channel apparently don't, either):
>
> > New crypto l
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
--- Comment #29 from Felix Wang ---
I am sorry without further review on crypto policies and approved this. I am
busy with my graduation things these days so I may not response timely.
Anyway, I created an issue on https://pagure.io/packaging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
--- Comment #28 from Fabio Valentini ---
I still don't think you understand the statement in the policy here (and the
people in the security channel apparently don't, either):
> New crypto libraries must comply with the crypto policies to ent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
--- Comment #27 from Andrew Bauer ---
I asked Fedora Security point blank what I needed to do in this case, and they
responded with a simple request to build with AES-NI. That's it.
They approved this. If you disagree then you will have to tak
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
--- Comment #26 from Fabio Valentini ---
So, does the package follow system-wide crypto policy?
If not, have you received an exception from the FPC? (you have not)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
--- Comment #25 from Andrew Bauer ---
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #24)
> It looks like you ignored this completely?
>
> > New crypto libraries must comply with the crypto policies to enter Fedora,
> > unless an exception has be
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
--- Comment #24 from Fabio Valentini ---
It looks like you ignored this completely?
> New crypto libraries must comply with the crypto policies to enter Fedora,
> unless an exception has been granted by Fedora packaging committee, after
> c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2024-7212da0e31 (wolfssl-5.7.0-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40
stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2024-783600f7bb (wolfssl-5.7.0-1.fc39) has been pushed to the Fedora 39
stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|COMPLETED |ERRATA
--- Comment #21 from Fe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-59f421a1df has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-59f421a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2024-7212da0e31 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --re
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2024-783600f7bb has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --re
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-59f421a1df (wolfssl-5.7.0-1.el9) has been submitted as an
update to Fedora EPEL 9.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-59f421a1df
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2024-783600f7bb (wolfssl-5.7.0-1.fc39) has been submitted as an update
to Fedora 39.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-783600f7bb
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2024-7212da0e31 (wolfssl-5.7.0-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update
to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-7212da0e31
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
Andrew Bauer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |COMPLETED
Status|RELEASE_PEN
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions
changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RELEASE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Bauer ---
Fedora Security gave the recommendation to build with AES-NI, which has been
done.
UPDATED Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/wolfssl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07920611-wolfssl/w
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Bauer ---
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #11)
> Technically, this would require additional review:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CryptoPolicies/
> #_new_crypto_libraries
I'm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
Fabio Valentini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||decatho...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
--- Comment #10 from Felix Wang ---
Would you mind sparing some time on my review request?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2305343
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notifi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
Felix Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
Assignee|nob...@f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Bauer ---
>[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
> (~1MB) or number of files.
> Note: Documentation size is 726315 bytes in 17 files.
In order to comply with this, large
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Bauer ---
Thank you for taking the time to perform this review. Good to know Archlinux
packages wolfssl. I may ping the package maintainer to learn why he chose the
build options he did (since there are so many to ch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
--- Comment #6 from Felix Wang ---
Here are some more comments:
1.
> [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/pkgconfig,
> /usr/src/debug, /usr/include, /usr/include
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
--- Comment #5 from Felix Wang ---
Well, using configure script will be also fine.
---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
--- Comment #4 from Felix Wang ---
> https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/blob/master/INSTALL#L80
It seems that that line was written 4 years ago, it may be improved a lot
currently.
The wolfssl package in Arch Linux also uses CMake.
https://g
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Bauer ---
Ah right. Good catch. I'll change that to GPL-2.0-or-later based on the project
LICENSING statement:
https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/blob/master/LICENSING
I very much prefer cmake, but you may have not
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
Felix Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||topa...@outlook.com
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302646
Andrew Bauer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Commen
31 matches
Mail list logo
