Bug 1022551

You don't have permission to access /vondruch/bouncycastle-pkix.spec on this server.

Good catch! Thanks. Should be fixed now.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated


Issues:
=======
See points marked [!] below


===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
     Why is there a BuildRequires on java-devel >= 1:1.7 and a Requires on
     java >= 1:1.7? Is not Java 1.5 sufficient (i.e. no versioned requires
     necessary)?
     Is the full java really necessary, or is java-headless sufficient?
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
     However, rpmlint complains about a spelling error:
     particuar → particular
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
     in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
     for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
     subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)

Maven:
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
     Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct
     or update to latest guidelines
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
     when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
     utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
     Version 1.50 is available
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
     "There was 1 failure" - specfile written to ignore test failures
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

Java:
[!]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
     Upstream binary jar: compiled Java class data, version 49.0 (Java 1.5)
     Packaged binary jar: compiled Java class data, version 50.0 (Java 1.6)
     So not the same build method as upstream.
[x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: bouncycastle-pkix-1.49-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
          bouncycastle-pkix-javadoc-1.49-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
          bouncycastle-pkix-1.49-1.fc21.src.rpm
bouncycastle-pkix.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US particuar -> particular, particulate, participant
bouncycastle-pkix.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US particuar -> particular, particulate, participant
bouncycastle-pkix.src: W: strange-permission bouncycastle-pkix.spec 0600L
bouncycastle-pkix.src: E: specfile-error sh: Failed to set JAVACMD
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint bouncycastle-pkix bouncycastle-pkix-javadoc
bouncycastle-pkix.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US particuar -> particular, particulate, participant
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
bouncycastle-pkix (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    bouncycastle
    java
    jpackage-utils

bouncycastle-pkix-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    bouncycastle-pkix
    jpackage-utils



Provides
--------
bouncycastle-pkix:
    bcpkxi
    bouncycastle-pkix
    mvn(org.bouncycastle:bcpkix-jdk15on)

bouncycastle-pkix-javadoc:
    bouncycastle-pkix-javadoc



Source checksums
----------------
http://www.bouncycastle.org/download/bcpkix-jdk15on-149.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 8adcc21c2f848e449d6a15daec96adf73174c93015ddf0f4eb8bb6f964500f8a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8adcc21c2f848e449d6a15daec96adf73174c93015ddf0f4eb8bb6f964500f8a
http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/org/bouncycastle/bcpkix-jdk15on/1.49/bcpkix-jdk15on-1.49.pom :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 828063a4cc1957a081c9da2f5ff1cf2b14cbe94f1d9623f837e3ea0bcdf6364a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 828063a4cc1957a081c9da2f5ff1cf2b14cbe94f1d9623f837e3ea0bcdf6364a


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -L bcprov -b 1022551
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

Built with local dependencies:
    /home/ellert/F/bcprov/bouncycastle-1.49-1.fc21.noarch.rpm

Hi Mattias,

Thank you for picking this gem for a review. I originally needed this package due to JRuby update. However, I am currently busy with other stuff, so if it can wait ... or I am fain if anybody else is willing to finish the submission instead of me.

Hi!

Maybe the current maintainer of bouncycastle-tsp might be interested. At a closer inspection, it looks like all the classes in the old bctsp.jar are now part of the bcpkix.jar.

I should probably change [-] to [!] here:

[!]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
     bouncycastle-pkix should obsolete bouncycastle-tsp < 1.47. Not sure if a
     provides is reasonable, but maybe.

It would make sense if al the bouncycastle{,-mail,-pg,-pkix} where maintained by the same packagers. The packages depend on each other with exact version dependencies and must therefore be updated together. I would also like to see a updated version of the bouncycastle packages in EPEL 7.

There is a typo in the provides: "bcpkxi" should be "bcpkix"

hi
built bouncycastle-pkix 1.50

Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/bouncycastle-pkix.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/bouncycastle-pkix-1.50-1.fc19.src.rpm

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

Issues:
=======
See points marked [!] below

===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     License tag says "BSD". The license text in LICENSE.html is "MIT" - same
     as the other bouncycastle* packages.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
     License.html included both in main and javadoc packages.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: ... though there is a missing newline at the end of the specfile
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[!]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
     * This package replaces the discontinued bouncycastle-tsp package (all
     classes from the old bctsp are now in bcpkix) and should Obsolete it.
     I am not sure whether a Provides is helpful or not.
     * This package replaces parts of older versions of the bouncycastle-mail
     package (some classes moved from bcmail to bcpkix) - should upgrading
     bouncycastle-mail 1.46 result in both bouncycastle-mail 1.50 and
     bouncycastle-pkix 1.50 being installed? (This might require that both
     packages Obsoletes bouncycastle-mail < 1.47), or should this just be
     ignored?
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
     Package requires java, would java-headless be enough?
     Package requires both jpackage-utils and javapackages-tools.
     According to the guidelines java packages should require jpackage-utils,
     not javapackages-tools. jpackage-utils currently is provided by
     javapackages-tools, so currently it is the same thing, but this might
     change in the future. If the jpackage-utils provides moves to a different
     package or becomes a separate package the requires on javapackages-tools
     will become a dependency bloat. Or is there a runtime dependency on the
     non-jpackage-utils part of javapackages-tools?
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
     in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
     for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[!]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
     Package BuildRequires both java-devel and ant. Is there a reason for
     this? Guidelines says java packages should BuidRequire only one of
     maven-local, ant or java-devel.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
     subpackage
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)

Maven:
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
     when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
     utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
     See above regarding jpackage-utils/javapackages-tools
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     The javadoc package has its own copy of the LICENSE.html file, so
     no dependency on the main package is necessary.     
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
     Tests are rune using junit during %build.
     All run test succeed. Tests known to fail are disabled with
     comments in the specfile.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

Java:
[!]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
     Like upstream the installed jars are built using java 1.5, so this
     is fine.
     Of the various bouncycastle* packages in Fedora, bouncycastle and
     bouncycastle-mail build using javac, while bouncycastle-pg and this
     version of the bouncycastle-pkix build using ant with a build.xml
     not included in the upstream source. I am in no position to say Which
     of these methods that is closest to the "upstream build method".
     For me it would make sense if all the bouncycastle* packages
     were built the same way - which is currently not the case. Since
     the already existing packages do not agree, I can not say "please
     do as the others" - but you (and this is a collective you that
     includes the maintainers and co-maintainers of all the
     bouncycastle* packages) might consider harmonizing this among the
     packages.
[x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: bouncycastle-pkix-1.50-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
          bouncycastle-pkix-javadoc-1.50-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
          bouncycastle-pkix-1.50-1.fc21.src.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint bouncycastle-pkix bouncycastle-pkix-javadoc
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
bouncycastle-pkix (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java
    javapackages-tools
    jpackage-utils
    mvn(org.bouncycastle:bcprov-jdk15on)

bouncycastle-pkix-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    jpackage-utils



Provides
--------
bouncycastle-pkix:
    bouncycastle-pkix
    mvn(org.bouncycastle:bcpkix-jdk15on)
    osgi(bcpkix)

bouncycastle-pkix-javadoc:
    bouncycastle-pkix-javadoc



Source checksums
----------------
http://www.bouncycastle.org/download/bcpkix-jdk15on-150.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 0be5bb948ec481b3d1f30ee80ef593b298b3782697f9eeee5c74cf270689b520
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0be5bb948ec481b3d1f30ee80ef593b298b3782697f9eeee5c74cf270689b520
http://central.maven.org/maven2/org/bouncycastle/bcpkix-jdk15on/1.50/bcpkix-jdk15on-1.50.pom :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e4058a215a83e936a2889cdce042078247130cc93fc37d1f4c13c648910d90b1
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e4058a215a83e936a2889cdce042078247130cc93fc37d1f4c13c648910d90b1


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1022551 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

(In reply to Mattias Ellert from comment #8)

> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>      License tag says "BSD". The license text in LICENSE.html is "MIT" - same
>      as the other bouncycastle* packages.
Done
> [!]: ... though there is a missing newline at the end of the specfile

This is only a your problem, is not an issues

> [!]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
>      Provides are present.
>      * This package replaces the discontinued bouncycastle-tsp package (all
>      classes from the old bctsp are now in bcpkix) and should Obsolete it.
>      I am not sure whether a Provides is helpful or not.
>      * This package replaces parts of older versions of the bouncycastle-mail
>      package (some classes moved from bcmail to bcpkix) - should upgrading
>      bouncycastle-mail 1.46 result in both bouncycastle-mail 1.50 and
>      bouncycastle-pkix 1.50 being installed? (This might require that both
>      packages Obsoletes bouncycastle-mail < 1.47), or should this just be
>      ignored?
Done,
Obsoletes:     bouncycastle-tsp < 1.47
Provides:      bouncycastle-tsp = %{version}-%{release}

> [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
>      Package requires java, would java-headless be enough?
>      Package requires both jpackage-utils and javapackages-tools.
>      According to the guidelines java packages should require jpackage-utils,
>      not javapackages-tools. jpackage-utils currently is provided by
>      javapackages-tools, so currently it is the same thing, but this might
>      change in the future. If the jpackage-utils provides moves to a
> different
>      package or becomes a separate package the requires on javapackages-tools
>      will become a dependency bloat. Or is there a runtime dependency on the
>      non-jpackage-utils part of javapackages-tools?

javapackages-tools replace jpackage-utils,
if this might change in the future we use ne tools references

> [!]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
>      are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
>      Package BuildRequires both java-devel and ant. Is there a reason for
>      this? Guidelines says java packages should BuidRequire only one of
>      maven-local, ant or java-devel.
Done, remove java.devel




> [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
>      See above regarding jpackage-utils/javapackages-tools

use javapackages-tools is fine for me and the other BC maintainer msrb

> Java:
> [!]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
>      Like upstream the installed jars are built using java 1.5, so this
>      is fine.
>      Of the various bouncycastle* packages in Fedora, bouncycastle and
>      bouncycastle-mail build using javac, while bouncycastle-pg and this
>      version of the bouncycastle-pkix build using ant with a build.xml
>      not included in the upstream source. I am in no position to say Which
>      of these methods that is closest to the "upstream build method".
>      For me it would make sense if all the bouncycastle* packages
>      were built the same way - which is currently not the case. Since
>      the already existing packages do not agree, I can not say "please
>      do as the others" - but you (and this is a collective you that
>      includes the maintainers and co-maintainers of all the
>      bouncycastle* packages) might consider harmonizing this among the
>      packages.

Original source archive from https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/ use gradle (...crap...) or ant ...


Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/bouncycastle-pkix.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/bouncycastle-pkix-1.50-1.fc19.src.rpm

ops BuildRequires: java-devel is not considerable a problem

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6581363

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #9)
> (In reply to Mattias Ellert from comment #8)
> Obsoletes:     bouncycastle-tsp < 1.47
> Provides:      bouncycastle-tsp = %{version}-%{release}

"Obsoletes: bouncycastle < 1.50" (without corresponding provides) should also be added so that this package gets pulled in on yum updates because things in the org.bouncycastle.mozilla and org.bouncycastle.openssl packages used to be in the main bouncycastle provider jar but are nowadays here.

(In reply to Ville Skyttä from comment #12)
> "Obsoletes: bouncycastle < 1.50" (without corresponding provides) should
> also be added so that this package gets pulled in on yum updates because
> things in the org.bouncycastle.mozilla and org.bouncycastle.openssl packages
> used to be in the main bouncycastle provider jar but are nowadays here.

This seem for me unnecessary because in Fedora bouncycastle 1.50 already exist ...

DEBUG util.py:281:   --> bouncycastle-1.50-2.fc21.noarch

Package Approved.

Thanks!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: bouncycastle-pkix
Short Description: CMS, PKCS, EAC, TSP, CMP, CRMF, OCSP for Bouncy Castle
Owners: gil msrb
Branches: f20
InitialCC: java-sig

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #13)
> This seem for me unnecessary because in Fedora bouncycastle 1.50 already
> exist ...

It might actually be unnecessary but not for that reason. 1.50 exists only in F-21/Rawhide at the moment and the obsoletes is necessary for people who upgrade from F-20 to F-21 so that functionality doesn't just disappear on yum upgrade.

But why it actually could be considered unnecessary is that simply installing the pkix package (which is what the Obsoletes would accomplish) is almost never enough to keep software from breaking; classpath adjustments will be required as well.

This is by the way a big reason why 1.50 should not be pushed to earlier distros than F-21/Rawhide. In addition to that, there are also quite a few API incompatibilities in 1.46 compared to 1.50 (as the author of Portecle, a piece which uses BouncyCastle APIs quite extensively I happen to be painfully aware of this).

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: bouncycastle-pkix
Short Description: CMS, PKCS, EAC, TSP, CMP, CRMF, OCSP for Bouncy Castle
Owners: gil msrb
InitialCC: java-sig

Git done (by process-git-requests).

built bouncycastle-pkix-1.50-1.fc21
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6590732