Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 206494
Review Request: ssss - Shamir's secret sharing scheme
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:43 EST
Spec URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/ssss/ssss.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/ssss/ssss-0.5-1.src.rpm Description: ssss is an implementation of Shamir's secret sharing scheme. ssss does both: the generation of shares for a known secret and the reconstruction of a secret using user provided shares.
I understand why you can't use the makefile, but I don't understand "$RPM_OPT_FLAGS/%{optflags}" on the gcc command line. Surely you only need the "$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" bit. This is really the only blocker I see, so I'll go ahead and approve and you can fix it when you check in. Review: * source files match upstream: 24227252aa195a146d09de1df10357a1 ssss-0.5.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. ? build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: ssss = 0.5-1.fc6 = libgmp.so.3()(64bit) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. APPROVED, just fix the gcc command line.
*** Bug 206492 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Thanks. It was already fixed in 0.5.0-2. Unfortunately, upon my first submission, bugzilla timed out and I submitted again. Turned out both bugs made it, and my comments were in the other one. Thanks for the review and approval
Oh, I apologize for not seeing that other ticket.