Bug 566560

Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1997477

> Version:	290409

Their scheme appears to be %d-%m-%y, which looks fragile. What would happen if they released the next update on 7th of October?  071009 < 290409


> -shared -Wl,-soname,libaesgm.so.0.0

Is the double-zero intentional?

$ rpmls -p libaesgm-290409-1.fc12.i686.rpm |grep /usr/lib
lrwxrwxrwx  /usr/lib/libaesgm.so.0
lrwxrwxrwx  /usr/lib/libaesgm.so.0.0
-rwxr-xr-x  /usr/lib/libaesgm.so.0.0.0


* There is no default %clean section yet to "rm -rf %buildroot".


* A proper namespace for the header files would be better than generic names such as /usr/include/aes.h, e.g. installing into %_includedir/aesgm or %_includedir/libaesgm

Thanks for these good points. I really should know better. Those issues are fixed in 20090429-2:

New SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/libaesgm-20090429-2.fc14.src.rpm
New SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/libaesgm.spec

REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ rpmlint is almost silent

Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/libaesgm-*
libaesgm.ppc: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cryptographic -> cryptographer, cryptography, cryptogram
libaesgm.ppc: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic -> cryptographer, cryptography, cryptogram
libaesgm-devel.ppc: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS:

These messages may be ignored.

+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (BSD).
0 The package does not include the text of the license(s) in its own file.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL:

Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum aes-src-29-04-09.zip*
0b6d09c741dcd1c100cdcdd8b5f5bf85cfe54bdd7bea1f96916c2471280ddf03  aes-src-29-04-09.zip
0b6d09c741dcd1c100cdcdd8b5f5bf85cfe54bdd7bea1f96916c2471280ddf03  aes-src-29-04-09.zip.1
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2185723

0 No additional build dependencies.
0 No need to handle locales.
+ The package calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package isn't designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application.
+ Header files are in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries.
+ The library file that ends in .so (without suffix) is in a -devel package.
+ The devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The packages does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The packages does not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
+ All filenames in the packages are valid UTF-8.

I've got only one simple note - if you plan to provide package also for EPEl, then you will need to add rm -rf %{buildroot} in the %install section.

This package is

APPROVED.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: libaesgm
Short Description: Library implementation of AES (Rijndael) cryptographic methods
Owners: spot
Branches: F-11 F-12 F-13 devel
InitialCC:

CVS Done

libaesgm-20090429-2.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libaesgm-20090429-2.fc12

libaesgm-20090429-2.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libaesgm-20090429-2.fc13

libaesgm-20090429-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libaesgm-20090429-2.fc11

libaesgm-20090429-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

libaesgm-20090429-2.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

libaesgm-20090429-2.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

I'd like to see this in EPEL 6.  Tom - do you want to maintain it there or shall I?  Same for irrlicht as well.

I have plenty on my plate right now, but I'm happy to let you maintain libaesgm and irrlicht in EPEL.

Will do.  Thanks.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: libaesgm
New Branches: el6
Owners: orion
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: libaesgm
New Branches: epel7
Owners: orion
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).