Bug 465382 (bouncycastle-mail)

For 1.41-1

* Summary/Description
  - Would you change Summary/Description more informative?
    I don't think the Summary "Additional libraries" makes
    much sense.

* Naming
  - First of all, why is this srpm named as "bouncycastle-mail",
    not "bcmail"?

* License
  - License tag should be "MIT"

* SourceURL
  - SOURCE0 must be written with full URL:
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL

* (Build)Requires
  - I guess "BuildRequires: java-devel >= 1.7" is better than
    java-1.7.0-icedtea-devel.

* 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.

* 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.

! %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.

(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.

(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > * 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". 
>
> Let me know what you think.
  - It may be better that "Provides: bcmail = %{version}-%{release}" is
    added (if you think if it is worth doing)

> 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?**

  - Please ignore this rpmlint complaint for this case. You can also use
----------------------------------------------------------
%if %{with_gcj}
  %{_javadir}/gcj-endorsed/bcmail-%{version}.jar
  %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}
%endif
----------------------------------------------------------

> *bcprov is the main library. The other libraries depend on it and they don't
> mean anything without it.
  - Then perhaps "Requires: bouncycastle (= %{version})" is needed?

Other things are okay.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
    This package (bouncycastle-mail) is APPROVED by mtasaka
-------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way would you have some time to review my review request
(bug 465740)?

Thanks, I added them since they may help some people.
I'll have a look at your package now.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: bouncycastle-mail
Short Description: S/MIME and CMS libraries for Bouncy Castle
Owners: oget
Branches:
InitialCC:

cvs done.

Closing (as this is requested for only F-10).

Any chance of this making it into Fedora 9 as well? It's a dependency of something I want to package ...

Yes that is something I want to do as well. Bouncycastle (bcprov) of F-9 is an old version. That needs to be updated if we want to push bcmail into F-9.

I have been trying to reach the F-9 maintainer (fitzsim) of bcprov for a while. He didn't reply to my emails and my pkgdb requests. You might, as well, want to try your chances with him. I'd be happy to make bcmail into F-9 if he allows me to co-maintain bcprov, or updates it himself.

For what it's worth, I just tried rebuilding the bouncycastle-mail SRPM on Fedora 9. All I had to do was change 1.41 to 1.38 (the current F9 version) in a couple of places and it seemed to work fine.

Well, I thought about packaging bcmail-1.38 for F-9. The source is available. But this violates the "Latest version must be packaged" guideline. There's not much I can do for F-9 since my hands are tied.

I finally got a hold of fitzsim. He released bouncycastle to me. I will update both bcprov and bcmail this week (for now for F-9 only. I'm not sure about F-8).

Package Change Request
=======================
Package Name: bouncycastle-mail
New Branch: F-9
Owner: oget

cvs done.

bouncycastle-mail-1.41-3.fc9,bouncycastle-1.41-2.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bouncycastle-mail-1.41-3.fc9,bouncycastle-1.41-2.fc9

bouncycastle-mail-1.41-3.fc9, bouncycastle-1.41-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.