[Bug 1341642] Review Request: cryptlib - Security library and toolkit for encryption and authentication services

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341642



--- Comment #9 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
These Provides shouldn't be necessary:

Provides: libcl.so.3 = 3.4.3
Provides: cryptlib_py.so

For the first one, it is autogenerated in a standard way that Fedora/EPEL
packages use:
[spot@localhost SPECS]$ rpm -qp
/home/spot/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/cryptlib-3.4.3-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm --provides
cryptlib = 3.4.3-4.fc24
cryptlib(x86-64) = 3.4.3-4.fc24
libcl.so.3()(64bit)

For the python2 subpackage, nothing should depend on "cryptlib_py.so", so that
Provides isn't useful.

* The %files entry for the -test subpackage is wrong. You're getting everything
from the java, perl, and python packages too and duplicating it.

rpmlint output:

cryptlib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crypto -> crypt, crypts,
crypt o
cryptlib.src:114: W: macro-in-comment %package
cryptlib.src:118: W: macro-in-comment %description
cryptlib.src:246: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
cryptlib.src:246: W: macro-in-comment %{cryptlibdir}
cryptlib.src:297: W: macro-in-comment %files
cryptlib.src: W: invalid-url Source5: perlfiles.tar.gz
cryptlib.src: W: invalid-url Source4: cryptlib-tests.tar.gz
cryptlib.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crypto -> crypt,
crypts, crypt o
cryptlib.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid
/usr/lib64/libcl.so.3.4.3
cryptlib-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
cryptlib-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
cryptlib-test.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/cryptlib/stestlib
cryptlib-test.x86_64: W: no-documentation
cryptlib-test.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/cryptlib/test/filename.h
cryptlib-test.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/cryptlib/c/cryptlib-test.c
cryptlib-test.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/cryptlib/test/test.h
cryptlib-java.x86_64: E: devel-dependency cryptlib-devel
cryptlib-java.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
cryptlib-java.x86_64: W: no-documentation
cryptlib-javadoc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/javadoc/cryptlib/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
cryptlib-python2.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cryptlib_py.so
cryptlib-python2.x86_64: W: no-documentation
cryptlib-perl.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/perl5/auto/PerlCryptLib/PerlCryptLib.so
cryptlib-perl.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man3
cryptlib-perl.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib64/perl5/auto/PerlCryptLib/PerlCryptLib.so 555
cryptlib-perl.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/lib64/perl5/auto/PerlCryptLib/.packlist
cryptlib-perl.x86_64: W: perl-temp-file
/usr/lib64/perl5/auto/PerlCryptLib/.packlist

To sum that up:
* You should add URLs for sources, unless they are not available anywhere
online, and if that's the case, you need to add a comment describing how to
construct that source tarball.
* Are the source files useful in the -test subpackage?
* Please fix the end-of-line encoding in the MANIFEST.MF
* Delete the perl5 hidden files (they're not useful post-build)
* Please remove macros from comments or replace "%" with "%%" to ensure they're
not accidentally invoked. This is happening because you have the python3 bits
commented out. An easier way to do it is to wrap those sections like this:

%if 0
%package python3
Summary:  Cryptlib bindings for python3
Group:    System Environment/Libraries
...
%endif

If you want to be fancy, you can do:

%global with_python3 0

%if %{with_python3}
%package python3
Summary:  Cryptlib bindings for python3
Group:    System Environment/Libraries
...
%endif

-- 
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]