Bug 617056

Brian,

did you talk to rdieter, yet? He could/should change gnupg2.

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/gnupg2

I'll change gnupg2 when the gnupg-1 is reviewed and accepted.

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

Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x]  Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]  Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]  Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]  Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.

Tested on:
[x]  Rpmlint output:
[mrunge@mrungexp SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/i686/gnupg-*
../SRPMS/gnupg-1.4.10-2.fc13.src.rpm 
gnupg.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gpgsplit
gnupg.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lspgpot
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

[?]  Package is not relocatable.
[x]  Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[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.
License type:
[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]  Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]  Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package    : dcf7ed712997888d616e029637bfc303
MD5SUM upstream package: dcf7ed712997888d616e029637bfc303  
[x]  Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x]  All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]  The spec file handles locales properly.
[-]  ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]  Package must own all directories that it creates.
[-]  Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]  Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]  Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[!]  Package consistently uses macros.
[x]  Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-]  Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]  Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]  Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-]  Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-]  Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-]  Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-]  Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]  Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-]  Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x]  Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[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.
[x]  Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: i386-rawhide (currently something between F14 and F15)
[x]  Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.

Tested on: i386, koji
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2393038
[?]  Package functions as described.
[x]  Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]  The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]  File based requires are sane.


=== Issues ===
1. macros should be used consistently: $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{_infodir}. You
should rename $RPM_BUILD_ROOT to %{buildroot}
2. Testing is some difficult as long as gnupg2 is named the same, includes
binaries named as in gnupg1. Is there a test case?

=== Final Notes ===
1. I would prefer explicitly including files in %files-section, no wildcards,
but this is a minor.

Thanks for the review. I have updated the spec and rpm file with the above changes. As noted above, tmraz has agreed to change gnupg2 once this review passes.

OK, 

package APPROVED.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: gnupg
New Branches: f13 f14 master
Owners: bcl

Git done (by process-git-requests).

F-13 with stable updates loses /usr/bin/gpg in latest gpg2 package, gpg package from update-testing has conflict files with gpg2, so it doesn't install and programs like kgpg and enigmail addon for thunderbird that require /usr/bin/gpg refuse to work.

(In reply to comment #8)
> F-13 with stable updates loses /usr/bin/gpg in latest gpg2 package, gpg package
> from update-testing has conflict files with gpg2, so it doesn't install and
> programs like kgpg and enigmail addon for thunderbird that require /usr/bin/gpg
> refuse to work.

That's simply not true - I see only this http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/updates/13/x86_64/gnupg2-2.0.14-4.fc13.x86_64.rpm gnupg2 package in the stable updates for F-13 which still has the compat /usr/bin/gpg symlink. The https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnupg2-2.0.14-6.fc13,gnupg-1.4.10-2.fc13 update still waits for push to testing.

(In reply to comment #9)

Yeah, you a right. I have gnupg2-2.0.14-5.fc13 from updates-testing. Sorry for mistake.

Can we close this ticket?

I think so. Brian?

yep.