[Bug 2297701] Review Request: botan3 - C++ cryptography library

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2297701

Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx
           Doc Type|---                         |If docs needed, set a value
                 CC|                            |jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx



--- Comment #1 from Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx> ---
I've been doing a review on this for a bit, and will continue in the morning
with the full review template. Its all looking fine at the moment, but it would
be nice if the .spec and published .srpm's .spec match, as well as tweaking the
repo so that 'fedora-review -b' can run the lint process. Right now it fails
because it can't retrieve the sources properly. I've run it by hand and it
dumps:


================================================================================================
rpmlint session starts
===============================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 7

botan3-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
python3-botan3.x86_64: W: no-documentation
botan3.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/botan3/license.txt
/usr/share/doc/botan3/license.txt


which is fine, the only thing I might try and tweak is avoiding that final
warning about duplicate license files in the base package, the other two
warnings are obviously bogus because of the -doc directory.

finally, the one review item I might flag right now is:

[!]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.

Because it seems that botan does publish a gpg signed package.


-- 
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=2297701

Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202297701%23c1

-- 
_______________________________________________
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