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@xxxxxxxxx> 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review