Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bouncycastle https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197963 fitzsim@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-07-10 17:31 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > NEEDSWORK: > - Buildroot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Done. > - Remove Epoch: 0 Done. > - Specifying 0 epoch on Requires and BuildRequires is not necessary. Remove them. Done. > - RPM_BUILD_ROOT=bctmp aot-compile-rpm <-- what is this doing? Why reset the > buildroot? Yeah, I realized I don't need this, it's already done by aot-compile-rpm in the %install section. > - Post and postun scripts should probably have logic for final removal vs > upgrade. As it stands you'll run rebuild-security-providers and rebuild-gcj-db > twice every time you upgrade the package. Once for the new package, and once > for removing the old package. OK. > > rpmlint output: > > E: bouncycastle zero-length > /etc/java/security/security.d/2000-org.bouncycastle.jce.provider.BouncyCastleProvider > W: bouncycastle-debuginfo objdump-failed objdump: > /tmp/bouncycastle-debuginfo-1.33-1.x86_64.rpm.17761/usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/gcj/bouncycastle/bcprov-1.33.jar.so.debug: > File format not recognized > W: bouncycastle mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs > W: bouncycastle non-conffile-in-etc > /etc/java/security/security.d/2000-org.bouncycastle.jce.provider.BouncyCastleProvider > W: bouncycastle objdump-failed objdump: > /tmp/bouncycastle-1.33-1.x86_64.rpm.17761/usr/lib64/gcj/bouncycastle/bcprov-1.33.jar.so: > File format not recognized > > The Zero length file, I see it just being touched. Does it just need to exist? > If so, we can ignore the error. However it should be marked as a config file. The filename 2000-org.bouncycastle.jce.provider.BouncyCastleProvider is interpreted by rebuild-security-providers as <provider priority>-<provider package name>, and is used to rebuild /usr/lib/security/classpath.security. Its contents are meaningless. I don't want to mark it as %config because then if someone edits it and then updates, a backup file with the extension .rpmsave will be created and will cause a bogus entry to appear in /usr/lib/security/classpath.security. > > Not sure about the objdump warnings. I ran rpmlint (0.77-1.fc5) on my x86 workstation and didn't see those warnings. I'll post the updated package shortly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review