[Bug 2241620] Review Request: gocryptfs - Encrypted overlay filesystem written in Go

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241620

Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|needinfo?(zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx |needinfo?(loganjerry@gmail.
                   |)                           |com)



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> ---
- Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
  Note: openssl1.1-devel is deprecated, you must not depend on it.
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/deprecating-packages/

  Hmmmm, fedora-review came up with this issue on its own.  The funny thing is
  that I do not see openssl1.1-devel in root.log, so it wasn't even installed.
  I suspect that fedora-review saw that this package BuildRequires both
  pkgconfig(libcrypto) and pkgconfig(openssl), and saw that openssl1.1-devel,
  a deprecated package, Provides both of those.  Well, openssl-devel Provides
  them, too.  I'm not sure what the right thing to do is here.  Perhaps this
  package should BuildRequires: openssl-devel explicitly to be sure that
  openssl1.1-devel can't be used to fulfill the BuildRequires?



-> Now depending on BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(openssl) > 3.0.0




- Can you remove /usr/share/doc/gocryptfs/Documentation/.gitignore from the
  binary package?  I don't see why MANPAGE-render.bash should be there either.
  Both files are also in golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel.


-> Now picking only md and txt files  

%global godocs          README.md Documentation/*.txt Documentation/*.md\\\
                        Documentation/*.png


%doc README.md Documentation/*.txt Documentation/*.md Documentation/*.png



- There are man pages in /usr/share/doc/gocryptfs/Documentation.  Some are also
  in /usr/share/man/man1, and some aren't.  Shouldn't they all be there instead
  of in the Documentation directory?  The man pages are also in the
  golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel, which doesn't seem right since that
  package contains no binaries.


See above.


- There are no debuginfo or debugsource packages for the gocryptfs package,
  which contains binaries.  Shouldn't there be?

Indeed. Removed the disabling of it.


Also since we're statically linked, we need t add the licenses of the deps:

# License for github.com/rfjakob/gocryptfs/v2: MIT
# License for github.com/aperturerobotics/jacobsa-crypto: Apache-2.0
# License for github.com/hanwen/go-fuse/v2: BSD-3-Clause
# License for github.com/moby/sys/mountinfo: Apache-2.0
# License for github.com/pkg/xattr: BSD-2-Clause
# License for github.com/rfjakob/eme: MIT
# License for github.com/sabhiram/go-gitignore: MIT
# License for github.com/spf13/pflag: BSD-3-Clause
# License for golang.org/x/crypto: BSD-3-Clause
# License for golang.org/x/sys: BSD-3-Clause
# License for golang.org/x/term: BSD-3-Clause
License:        MIT AND BSD-3-Clause AND Apache-2.0 AND BSD-2-Clause


Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gocryptfs.spec
SRPM URL:
https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gocryptfs-2.4.0-1.fc39.src.rpm


Copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/eclipseo/gocryptfs/build/6577981/

Fedora-revew template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eclipseo/gocryptfs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06577981-gocryptfs/fedora-review/review.txt


Thanks for the review!


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241620

Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202241620%23c3
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux