Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/beecrypt.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/beecrypt-4.1.2-16.src.rpm Description: BeeCrypt is an ongoing project to provide a strong and fast cryptography toolkit. Includes entropy sources, random generators, block ciphers, hash functions, message authentication codes, multiprecision integer routines and public key primitives.
Something strange - is this a Review Request or Merge Request? Seems that beecrypt already in Fedora: [petro@host-12-116 ~]$ LANG=C rpm -qi beecrypt Name : beecrypt Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : 4.1.2 Vendor: Red Hat, Inc. Release : 12 Build Date: Thu Dec 7 18:45:51 2006 Install Date: Mon Jun 4 12:42:11 2007 Build Host: ls20-bc1-14.build.redhat.com Group : System Environment/Libraries Source RPM: beecrypt-4.1.2-12.src.rpm Size : 260703 License: LGPL Signature : DSA/SHA1, Fri May 18 21:05:40 2007, Key ID b44269d04f2a6fd2 Packager : Red Hat, Inc. <http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla> URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/beecrypt Summary : An open source cryptography library. Description : Beecrypt is a general-purpose cryptography library. [petro@host-12-116 SPECS]$
Re-review request, because beecrypt on Rawhide got orphaned in November or December last year (see fedora-devel-list and CVS).
According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/RetiredPackages : "beecrypt 2007-12-05 - dropped for devel/F-9+, obsolete and unused" Furthermore, beecrypt seems to be unmaintained - last stable release at 2004-12-21 (4.1.2). Please be aware that without upstream, you would become de-facto upstream for beecrypt upon package approval, responsible for fixing all issues yourself. I don't see why you would want this back into Fedora anyway as there really are no packages in rawhide requiring beecrypt anymore - try 'repoquery --repoid=development --whatrequires beecrypt'.
I know upstream via another project and there are also commits in the upstream VCS. Are you kidding me? No packages requiring beecrypt in Fedora doesn't mean, that there's no software in the world requiring or depending on beecrypt. But I saw you hereby willing to rewrite all of my/our third party software and the applications which are mostly closed source. Independent of that, I'm maintaining even more old software in Fedora and EPEL which saw no release for > 3.5 years. I'm using software, because it works and I'm not going to fork everything nor do I re-invent the wheel for Fedora. So the upstream is and will be upstream, I will be downstream and fixes are going to upstream as for every other package as well. Please stop talking bullshit, as long as upstream is not dead, but just quiet...thanks :) So is somebody doing the review now, please? Thank you very much.
Reviewing... Full review done, results: Must Fix: ========= * Drop the java_arches %define and %ifarch's, gcj is available on all Fedora supported platforms now a days * The library gets compiled with -fomit-frame-pointer in the CFLAGS, making debugging it impossible * The following rpmlint errors: beecrypt-java.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libbeecrypt_java.so beecrypt-java.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libbeecrypt_java.so.0.0.0 beecrypt-java.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libbeecrypt_java.so.0.0.0 What is the idea behind this .so, is this a binding for java, and shouldn't it get installed somewhere under /usr/lib/java then? Should Fix ========== * Re-enable c++ bindings, the reason to disable them (not make rpm depend upon libstdc++) is no longer valid, and I think that for other beecrypt users beecrypt requering libstdc++ is nothing but a small nuisance. Note if you do this you must add libicu-devel to the BuildRequires as that is required for the c++ stuff
(In reply to comment #5) > * Drop the java_arches %define and %ifarch's, gcj is available on all Fedora > supported platforms now a days Looks like the java package doesn't make sense at all when seeing bug #151294, I would disable the package for the next rebuild again until situation changes. Would this be suitable for you as well? > * The library gets compiled with -fomit-frame-pointer in the CFLAGS, making > debugging it impossible You're right, I'll change that. > * Re-enable c++ bindings, the reason to disable them (not make rpm depend upon > libstdc++) is no longer valid, and I think that for other beecrypt users > beecrypt requering libstdc++ is nothing but a small nuisance. I still would like to keep the c++ bindings disabled - even if only rpm was the reason to do that. Please let me short know, whether it fits for you as well. After that I'll go and create a new package solving all of the issues. Thanks.
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > * Drop the java_arches %define and %ifarch's, gcj is available on all Fedora > > supported platforms now a days > > Looks like the java package doesn't make sense at all when seeing bug #151294, > I would disable the package for the next rebuild again until situation changes. > Would this be suitable for you as well? > Given the new info disabling / removing the java sub-package is fine with me. > > * Re-enable c++ bindings, the reason to disable them (not make rpm depend upon > > libstdc++) is no longer valid, and I think that for other beecrypt users > > beecrypt requering libstdc++ is nothing but a small nuisance. > > I still would like to keep the c++ bindings disabled - even if only rpm was the > reason to do that. > Well, its normal for Fedora packages to enable as much features / bindings as possible. But its not mandatory, so although I would prefer c++ support being enabled (*), I'll also approve the package with it disabled. Note that Debian does have c++ support enabled be default. * unless there are good reasons not too, and requiring libstdc++ is not a good reason IMHO
Okay, updated package here: Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/beecrypt.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/beecrypt-4.1.2-17.src.rpm
Al good now, approved!
Hans, thank you very much. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: beecrypt Updated Fedora Owners: robert Updated Description: An open source cryptography library Updated Cvsextras Commits: No The pkgdb told me, that Panu Matilainen (pmatilai) would have been the old owner of the package (before orphaning). If somehow possible please do the changes mentioned above only for branches F-8, F-9 and devel.
cvs done.
Package: beecrypt-4.1.2-17.fc8 Tag: dist-f8-updates-candidate Status: complete Package: beecrypt-4.1.2-17.fc9 Tag: dist-f9-updates-candidate Status: complete Package: beecrypt-4.1.2-17.fc10 Tag: dist-f10 Status: complete
The beecrypt package doesn't have any EPEL history so far, because it was part of RHEL <= 5, but isn't of RHEL 6. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: beecrypt New Branches: EL-6 Owners: robert