Bug 996813
| Summary: | Review Request: SQLCipher - Encrypted SQLite databases | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Abel Luck <abel> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
| Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | besser82, bressers, i, juliand, msuchy, package-review, pcfe, projects.rg |
| 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: | 2015-07-21 14:48:07 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: | 201449 | ||
|
Description
Abel Luck
2013-08-14 02:57:22 UTC
Are you going to support EPEL? Hm, I hadn't thought to. This would be my first time maintaining a package. Is the package more likely to be accepted if I support EPEL? I'd need to look into the workload required to support it. That usually has no affect whether you want to build for EPEL or not. The _real_ problem here is: Your package ships a bundled sqlite-version and that's something which is strongly discouraged. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries You should actually unbundle `sqlite` and build this against the one shipped by the system's libs. BTW. Christopher's question was about the presence of `rm -rf %{buildroot}` on %install and %check and the presence of Group: and BuildRoot: tags... Those are simply not needed, but for <= el5. You can safely drop `defattr`, because this was needed on <= el4. The next problem related to the bundled `sqlite` is: They way it get's packaged will simply conflict with system's installation of sqlite and thus is another no-go and will cause _serious_ trouble to other software which is build against system's version of sqlite.. Thanks Björn! 1. I believe SQLCipher deserves a No Bundled Libraries exception, so I'm preparing an exception request. Once that's submitted, I'll link it here. 2. The reason for the EPEL looking code is because I based this package off the existing sqlite package. Should I remove them if I don't plan on supporting EPEL? 3. I don't believe SQLCipher will conflict with the system's sqlite. There are no file path conflicts. Moreover, I have sqlite, sqlite-devel, sqlcipher, and sqlcipher-devel installed simultaneously on my dev system with no conflicts. 4. A new version of SQLCipher has been released since I created the package, I'll be updating it next week. Now that I have a space on fedorapeople.org, I'll upload the new sources there. You can see this from the rpmls output below. [user@fedora-pkg rpmbuild]$ rpmls RPMS/x86_64/sqlcipher-devel-2.2.1-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/sqlcipher/sqlite3.h -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/sqlcipher/sqlite3ext.h lrwxrwxrwx /usr/lib64/libsqlcipher.so -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/sqlcipher.pc [user@fedora-pkg rpmbuild]$ rpmls RPMS/x86_64/sqlcipher-2.2.1-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm -rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/sqlcipher lrwxrwxrwx /usr/lib64/libsqlcipher.so.0 -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib64/libsqlcipher.so.0.8.6 drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/doc/sqlcipher-2.2.1 -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/sqlcipher-2.2.1/LICENSE -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/sqlcipher-2.2.1/README -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man1/sqlcipher.1.gz [user@fedora-pkg rpmbuild]$ rpmls RPMS/x86_64/sqlcipher-tcl-2.2.1-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm drwxr-xr-x /usr/lib64/tcl8.5/sqlcipher -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib64/tcl8.5/sqlcipher/libtclsqlite3.so -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib64/tcl8.5/sqlcipher/pkgIndex.tcl Any news here? definitely missing in the repo,no one willing to back it ? Closing due long inactivity. Feel free to reopen if you want to continue. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1310294 *** |