Bug 985344

Reassigning to zlib.

Looks like minizip.h is missing zconf.h include for z_crc_t.

I've submitted a patch for this upstream at http://mail.madler.net/pipermail/zlib-devel_madler.net/2013-August/003081.html

... and went ahead and did a zlib build for rawhide with the patch backported, zlib-1.2.8-3.fc20.

I'm not able to see the upstream zlib report because the mail archive is
dead (already reported to admins).  But the fix seems to be wrong;  the
crypt.h file is not supposed to be included directly but rather via zip.h
or unzip.h.  Maybe this is related to NOUNCRYPT fixed by _totally_
undocumented commit 64704e73bce559f2bd1a in Fedora's zlib package, I
re-submitted this:
https://github.com/madler/zlib/pull/210

I noted that latest build of libdigidocpp still depends on libz.so.1
(correct), but I also see that the minizip is built as a part of
libdigidocpp which looks like a bug (you should depend on libminizip.so).
Because there's FTBFS bug 1415937 (IMHO issue in building yet another
bundled libraries, please don't if possible), I stopped further analyzing
for now.

Re-opened to let you know that the zlib fix zlib-1.2.8-minizip-include.patch
is going to be reverted soon, unless I'll be proven it is wrong decision.

Removing dependency from bundled minizip is easy.

Correct me if I'm wrong. zlib-1.2.8-minizip-include.patch is already reverted in rawhide?

If I remove bundled minizip and do a mock build against F25... all seems ok. Against rawhide, then there seems to be a problem with openssl 1.1 (reported to upstream).

Besides openssl issues I currently do not see any build problems with libdigidocpp in relevance of minizip. Ot am I missing something obvious here?



$ fedpkg diff
diff --git a/libdigidocpp.spec b/libdigidocpp.spec
index 5794e27..7b73ddb 100644
--- a/libdigidocpp.spec
+++ b/libdigidocpp.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 Name:           libdigidocpp
 Version:        3.12.2
-Release:        1%{?dist}
+Release:        2%{?dist}
 Summary:        Library for creating and validating BDoc and DDoc containers
 License:        LGPLv2+
 URL:            https://github.com/open-eid/libdigidocpp
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ BuildRequires:  libdigidoc-devel
 BuildRequires:  openssl-devel
 BuildRequires:  xml-security-c-devel
 BuildRequires:  xsd
+BuildRequires:  minizip-devel
 # Provide xxd
 BuildRequires:  vim-common
 
@@ -45,6 +46,9 @@ The %{name}-doc package contains documentation provided by upstream.
 %prep
 %setup -q
 
+# Remove bundled minizip
+rm -rf minizip
+
 %build
 %{cmake} . \
  -DCMAKE_INSTALL_SYSCONFDIR=/etc \
@@ -86,6 +90,9 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot}
 
 
 %changelog
+* Sun Feb 19 2017 Mihkel Vain <mihkel@fedoraproject.org> - 3.12.2-2
+- Remove bundled minizip
+
 * Sun Jul 10 2016 Mihkel Vain <mihkel@fedoraproject.org> - 3.12.2-1
 - New upstream release

(In reply to Mihkel Vain from comment #5)
> Removing dependency from bundled minizip is easy.

Nice!  Glad to see that you also 'rm -r minizip' subdir and it works fine.

> Correct me if I'm wrong. zlib-1.2.8-minizip-include.patch is already
> reverted in rawhide?

Correct.

> If I remove bundled minizip and do a mock build against F25... all seems ok.
> Against rawhide, then there seems to be a problem with openssl 1.1 (reported
> to upstream).

Did you consider building (for now) against compat-openssl10-devel ?

> Besides openssl issues I currently do not see any build problems with
> libdigidocpp in relevance of minizip. Ot am I missing something obvious here?

Not something I would consider obvious :).

> 
> Did you consider building (for now) against compat-openssl10-devel ?
> 

Not that easy I think. I tried a mock build and it failed.

libdigidocpp also depends on xml-security-c-devel and this again depends on openssl-devel (not compat-openssl10-devel) and since we have really old version of xml-security-c in Fedora repos, it also has FTBFS reported. Meanwhile I managed to contact xml-security-c maintainer(anttix) and he gave committer rights to someone named bruno who requested those rights a while ago. Anttix is a busy guy and he is not actively participating as a package maintainer.

I also wrote an e-mail to bruno and asked is he able to update that package any time soon. No reply yet.

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/xml-security-c/

So. Lets keeps this report open, but I think in general it is actually resolved. But lets wait a bit and see. Basically all my packages need an updated xml-security-c.

libdigidocpp-3.12.3-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-cc45511239

libdigidocpp-3.12.3-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ccdfb3688e

libdigidocpp-3.12.3-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ccdfb3688e

libdigidocpp-3.12.3-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-cc45511239

This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 26 development cycle.
Changing version to '26'.

libdigidocpp-3.12.3-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

libdigidocpp-3.12.3-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.