Bug 465203

Summary:	RFE: Upgrade bouncycastle to the latest version
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora>
Component:	bouncycastle	Assignee:	Lillian Angel <langel>
Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	low	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	rawhide	CC:	langel
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2008-10-02 16:05:19 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	465511

Description Orcan Ogetbil 2008-10-02 05:25:13 UTC

Description of problem:
The current version of bouncycastle is 1.38 for F-9, and 1.39 for rawhide, which are both relatively old. 

Currently there is a version 1.41 out with significant improvements as listed in http://www.bouncycastle.org/releasenotes.html

Also the code for the patented IDEA algorithm is removed from the default tarball and hence it will be a smoother upgrade.

And a personal request: I will greatly appreciate if bcmail-1.41 is included in the package since iText (which I was thinking of de-obsoleting) depends both on bcprov and bcmail.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
1.38 for F-9
1.39 for rawhide

Comment 1 Lillian Angel 2008-10-02 16:05:19 UTC

Upgraded bouncycastle to 1.41. Should be in rawhide within the next couple of days

Comment 2 Orcan Ogetbil 2008-10-02 20:57:32 UTC

I decided to take over bcmail by packaging it as bouncycastle-mail. But I have one question that concerns both bouncycastle and bouncycastle-mail.

Does bouncycastle really have BSD license (as I saw in the spec file of last package in koji)? Please observe:
http://www.bouncycastle.org/licence.html

This license file can be found in both bcprov and bcmail tarballs.

Comment 3 Kevin Kofler 2008-10-03 11:50:56 UTC

Sounds like it's a variant of the MIT X11 license, i.e. it should actually say License: MIT, not License: BSD.