[Bug 465382] Review Request: bouncycastle-mail - Additional libraries for Bouncy Castle

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465382





--- Comment #2 from Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri at yahoo.com>  2008-10-05 23:27:12 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Dear mtasaka, 
Thanks for the review. I stole the spec file directly from the fedora
bouncycastle package and did not modify much except the %{name}'s. I knew it
lacks certain things. All of the errors/flaws of my spec is inherited from the
original spec file.

> For 1.41-1
> 
> * Summary/Description
>   - Would you change Summary/Description more informative?
>     I don't think the Summary "Additional libraries" makes
>     much sense.
> 
I added to Summary/Description. I think it's better now.

> * Naming
>   - First of all, why is this srpm named as "bouncycastle-mail",
>     not "bcmail"?
> 
Let me tell you the situation. The actual Bouncy Castle is a suite consisting
of many libraries. bcprov* and bcmail are two of these libraries among many
others. In Fedora, the bcprov library is already packed as
"bouncycastle.<version>.rpm" but not "bcprov.<version>.rpm". 

Originally, I was going back and forth between the names: bcmail and
bouncycastle-mail . I decided on the latter for the sake of staying consistent
with the existing bouncycastle package. But I am fine with renaming the
package. 

Let me know what you think.

> * License
>   - License tag should be "MIT"
> 
I know. See comment #4 of 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465203
Fixed now.

> * SourceURL
>   - SOURCE0 must be written with full URL:
>     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
> 
Done


> * (Build)Requires
>   - I guess "BuildRequires: java-devel >= 1.7" is better than
>     java-1.7.0-icedtea-devel.
> 
Done

> * unpackaging source / removing precompiled binaries
>   - Please unpack all sources in the tarball before removing
>     precompiled binaries to make it sure that all precompiled
>     binaries (including those in zip files if any) are
>     correctly removed.
> 
>   ! By the way when using "unzip" adding "-qq" option is
>     preferred. When using zip source tarball %setup -q
>     uses this.
> 
Fixed

> * absolute symlink
> -----------------------------------------------------
> W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/java/gcj-endorsed/bcmail-1.41.jar
> /usr/share/java/bcmail-1.41.jar
> -----------------------------------------------------
>   - Mainly for chroot reason and so on, Fedora requests that all
>     symlinks should be relative, not absolute.
> 
Fixed

> ! %postun
> -----------------------------------------------------
> %postun
> if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then
>   if [ -x %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db ]; then
>     %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db
>   fi
> fi
> -----------------------------------------------------
>   - While I am not familiar with gcj, would you explain why
>     it is sufficient that these scripts are called only when
>     [ $1 -eq 0 ] ? (please also refer to:
>     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GCJGuidelines )
> 
> * %attr
>   - Although GCJGuidelines uses it, the part "%attr(-,root,root)"
>     is completely redundant.

My best answer will be: That's the way it is in the original bouncycastle.spec
file. Maybe it remained from pre-F-8 days where no JDK was available. Now I
took that part off and redesigned the parts regarding GCJ honoring the
guidelines (except %attr).

I added the if-clauses "%if %{with_gcj}" as the guidelines propose but this
results in the rpmlint warning:
   bouncycastle-mail.spec:98: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package  
%{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}
which is a wrong warning because noarch does not apply to that line (is this an
rpmlint bug?). Should I take those "%if %{with_gcj}" off from the spec file?**

I packaged bcmail because it is a requirement for iText (bug #        465511)
which will let me enable the pdf plugin of tuxguitar in the future. I don't
know much about the cryptography otherwise.

New files:
SPEC: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/bouncycastle-mail.spec
SRPM: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/bouncycastle-mail-1.41-2.fc10.src.rpm

Thanks again!

*bcprov is the main library. The other libraries depend on it and they don't
mean anything without it.
** You can build the package with "rpmbuild -ba --without gcj
bouncycastle-mail.spec" now and this will produce a noarch rpm, without those
arch dependent .so files produced by gcj.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.