Spec URL: http://users.skynet.be/fa990755/aespipe.spec SRPM URL: http://users.skynet.be/fa990755/aespipe-2.3e-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: aespipe is an encryption tool that reads from standard input and writes to standard output. It uses the AES (Rijndael) cipher. It can be used as an encryption filter, to create and restore encrypted tar/cpio backup archives and to read/write and convert loop-AES compatible encrypted images. aespipe can be used for non-destructive in-place encryption of existing disk partitions for use with the loop-AES encrypted loopback kernel module.
I don't see you in the account system; what's your ID there? Do you require sponsorship?
Hi Jason, don't know about ID but my account name is 'knol'. I'm already sponsored, thanks, but a review of this tiny little new package would be welcomed :-).
I guess I don't know how anyone is supposed to be able to connect "Dean Mander" with "Rob Loos". Maybe something's screwy with the account system. The package fails to build for me in rawhide: Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.jcJ0ax + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd aespipe-v2.3e + LANG=C + export LANG + unset DISPLAY + aclocal /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.jcJ0ax: line 29: aclocal: command not found I'm not sure how this could build in mock or koji since you call autoconf and aclocal without having any dependency on them; do you have a link to a koji scratch build I could look at? Also, why do you even need to call aclocal and autoconf? Is there something wrong with the confugure script that's in the package? You're not patching anything as far as I can tell. The licensing of this code is confusing at best. You have License: GPL+, but: md5.c is GPLv2+ aes.c is, I think, "Copyright Only" aespipe.c is GPL+ rmd160.c is GPLv2+ sha512.c is GPL+ And then there are assembler files: aes-amd64.S is BSD aes-x86.S is BSD md5-amd64.S is GPL+ md5-x86.S is GPL+ And then there's aes-GPL.diff, which patches aes-amd64.S and aes-x86.S to allow GPL+ licenses, but I'm not really sure of either why this would be needed (3-clause BSD is already GPL compatible) or whether its reasonable to make licensing changes this way. My take is that the whole thing, once compiled, GPLv2+, but I think it would help if Legal verified that.
from Comment #3: > Also, why do you even need to call aclocal and autoconf? Is there something > wrong with the confugure script that's in the package? You're not patching > anything as far as I can tell. Removed aclocal and autoconf, now it builds correctly in mock. > My take is that the whole thing, once compiled, GPLv2+, but I think it would > help if Legal verified that. I hadn't checked all files individually, thanks for notifying. The license FAQ covers a comparable case and claims GPLv2+, so you must be right on this. changelog: - remove of aclocal,autoconf - change license to GPLv2+ Spec URL: http://users.skynet.be/fa990755/aespipe.spec SRPM URL: http://users.skynet.be/fa990755/aespipe-2.3e-2.fc9.src.rpm
Yep. This should be GPLv2+. Lifting FE-Legal.
- The tools execves to gpg, therefore a Requires: gpg should be added - The package contains a testsuite, please add this to the spec to run it: %check make tests - Then you probably also need "BuildRequires: gpg" - The package does not build on ppc(64): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=991182 The problem is, that you have to run make without a target on ppc(64). You can do this by defining a helper macro, e.g. %define make_target %{nil} %ifarch x86_64 %define make_target amd64 %endif %ifarch %{ix86} %define make_target x86 %endif make %{?_smp_mflags} %{make_target} - Also note the added "%{?_smp_mflags}", which seem to work fine here. - Have you thought about patching Makefile.in at upstream to use your install commands instead of cp? Then you can use "make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}" beginning with next upstreams release. I can probably help you with this, if you need help. - Maybe you should use Source0: instead of Source:, but it seems not to cause any trouble. I believe I have read some changes about Patch:/Patch0: with the new rpm, but I have to check this. - The guidelines recommend a %defattr(-, root, root, -) instead of %defattr(-, root, root, 0755), but I guess the latter is a better %defattr, but I have to check this, too I will try to make a complete review later.
Hi Till, thanks for the remarks. I've created a new version of the specfile: - add make_target (to build on ppc) - add BuildRequires:gpg - add make tests - add %{?_smp_mflags} to make commands Patching Makefile.in behind my capacity but any help is appreciated. http://fedorapeople.org/~knol/srpms/aespipe/aespipe.spec http://fedorapeople.org/~knol/srpms/aespipe/aespipe-2.3e-3.fc11.src.rpm
no one interested for final review?
(In reply to comment #8) > no one interested for final review? Sorry, ma fault. According to my comment:6, this needs to be added but is not added in the spec from comment:7: Requires: gpg
(In reply to comment #9) > According to my comment:6, this needs to be added but is not added in the spec > from comment:7: > Requires: gpg forgot that one, but now corrected: http://fedorapeople.org/~knol/srpms/aespipe/aespipe.spec http://fedorapeople.org/~knol/srpms/aespipe/aespipe-2.3e-4.fc12.src.rpm
rpmlint output is not ok: aespipe.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 11) This is the new Requires:gpg line, just use spaces there like everywhere else in the spec. aespipe.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/aespipe This seems to have been already reported upstream with a patch, but it seems that upstream did not make a release with the patch included. This is a bad sign. http://marc.info/?l=linux-crypto&m=122573121723097&w=2 So please at least use the patch, but better get in contact with upstream and ask why there is no new release with the patch included. I'll unassign myself for now, so in case this is resolved when I do not have time for it again, someone else might pick it up.
Same for me: the request dates from 2008, and it has always been working fine for myself, while it's quite difficult to get everything "fedora spiritual pure" that I'm no longer interested. I'm closing the request.
Reopening. I see a new release http://loop-aes.sourceforge.net/aespipe/aespipe-v2.4b.tar.bz2 I fixed the whitespace warning and uploaded http://kuix.de/fedora/aespipe/aespipe-2.4b-1.fc13.src.rpm I built it, and no longer get any executable stack warnings. $ rpmlint aespipe-2.4b-1.fc13.i686.rpm aespipe.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cpio -> CPI, Scipio, campion aespipe.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) aes -> eyes, sea, ae aespipe.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpio -> CPI, Scipio, campion aespipe.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US loopback -> loop back, loop-back, loophole aespipe.i686: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.3e-4 ['2.4b-1.fc13', '2.4b-1'] aespipe.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bz2aespipe 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. http://kuix.de/fedora/aespipe/aespipe-2.4b-1.fc13.i686.rpm
Hi Kai, what's the current status? I don't see any flag set. Are you looking for package reviewer? The process is described at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers I can do the package review. Please let me know. Thanks Jirka
Spec URL: http://jhladky.fedorapeople.org/aespipe-2.4b-1.spec MD5: 01eb79a867916d823061f7c68327153b SRPM URL: http://jhladky.fedorapeople.org/aespipe-2.4b-1.fc12.src.rpm MD5: 6ab6d7b2eae92a26be3057f92bb19c61 I have reviewed the package and everything is fine. Thanks Jirka
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: aespipe Short Description: AES-based encryption tool for tar/cpio and loop-aes images Owners: jhladky Branches: F-12 F-13 EL-5 EL-6 InitialCC: jhladky
Jiri, you can't review your own package. Cancelling CVS request.
Tom, sorry I din't know that.
Spec URL: http://jhladky.fedorapeople.org/aespipe-2.4b-2.spec MD5: d39444e2a72537852b0910f83e243017 SRPM URL: http://jhladky.fedorapeople.org/aespipe-2.4b-2.fc12.src.rpm MD5: 820348afe0fde4724df8ca3e77397a96 I have cleaned up SPEC file a little bit and moved example script bz2aespipe into /usr/share/doc/aespipe-<version>/examples/bz2aespipe I'm looking for somebody to review the package. I have already packaged hwloc, please check https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=606498 Thanks a lot! Jirka
The fedora-review flag needs to be set to " " to show that nobody is currently assigned to review it. The "?" means, that someone is currently reviewing it.
So the current submitter is Jiri, is it okay?
Hi Mamoru, yes, that's right. I'm the submitter. Thanks Jiri
Well, - Now we prefer to use %global instead of %define https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define Other things are okay. ------------------------------------------------------ This package (aespipe) is APPROVED by mtasaka ------------------------------------------------------
Hi Mamoru-san, thanks a lot for reviewing the package. I have replaced %define with %global and made sure that everything works fine. Spec URL: http://jhladky.fedorapeople.org/aespipe-2.4b-3.spec MD5: 6b1af633ea681808fb30c1a1f27fc487 SRPM URL: http://jhladky.fedorapeople.org/aespipe-2.4b-3.fc12.src.rpm MD5: 820348afe0fde4724df8ca3e77397a96 Thanks Jirka
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Hello, I have tried to check-out the module aespipe as described at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Check_out_the_module However, it's not working. It seems that wiki does not reflect that Fedora is now using GIT instead of CVS: ============================================================================== $fedpkg clone -B aespipe would have cloned aespipe with dirs as user jhladky $fedpkg clone aespipe Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/fedpkg", line 812, in <module> args.command(args) File "/usr/bin/fedpkg", line 408, in clone pyfedpkg.clone(args.module[0], args.user, args.path, args.branch) File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/pyfedpkg/__init__.py", line 170, in clone raise FedpkgError('Could not clone %s: %s' % (giturl, e)) pyfedpkg.FedpkgError: Could not clone ssh://jhladky.fedoraproject.org/aespipe: "['git', 'clone', 'ssh://jhladky.fedoraproject.org/aespipe'] returned exit status 128" ============================================================================== Could somebody please point me to the updated documentation? Thanks a lot! Jirka
Hello, yum update fedora-packager has solved my problem. I was able to upload SPEF file and tarball with the source code on to the git repository:-) I did this for master branch only. Should I do the same for other branches as well? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Import_Your_Package is not updated yet. Thanks Jirka
(In reply to comment #28) > Should I do the same for other branches as well? Yes, please
aespipe-2.4b-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/aespipe-2.4b-3.el5
aespipe-2.4b-3.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/aespipe-2.4b-3.fc12
aespipe-2.4b-3.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/aespipe-2.4b-3.fc13
Please also rebuild and submit for F-14.
aespipe-2.4b-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update aespipe'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/aespipe-2.4b-3.el5
aespipe-2.4b-3.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
aespipe-2.4b-3.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
aespipe-2.4b-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: aespipe New Branches: F-14 Owners: jhladky InitialCC: jhladky See: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/4247#comment:1 Thanks Jirka
Thanks!! Jirka
aespipe-2.4b-3.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/aespipe-2.4b-3.fc14
aespipe-2.4b-3.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
aespipe-2.4c-0.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/aespipe-2.4c-0.fc15
aespipe-2.4c-0.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.