Bug 966324 - Review Request: codecrypt - The post-quantum cryptography tool
Summary: Review Request: codecrypt - The post-quantum cryptography tool
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard: NotReady
Depends On: freetiger
Blocks: FE-DEADREVIEW
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-05-23 04:29 UTC by Christopher Meng
Modified: 2020-08-10 00:46 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-08-10 00:46:59 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Christopher Meng 2013-05-23 04:29:35 UTC
Spec URL: http://cicku.me/codecrypt.spec
SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/codecrypt-1.1-1.fc20.src.rpm
Description: This is a GnuPG-like unix program for encryption and signing that uses only 
quantum-computer-resistant algorithms:
McEliece cryptosystem (compact quasi-dyadic variant) for encryption;
Hash-based Merkle tree algorithm (FMTSeq variant) for digital signatures.
Fedora Account System Username: cicku

Comment 1 Eduardo Echeverria 2013-05-26 04:40:56 UTC
Hi @cicku, codecrypt is LGPLv3+ please fix the license field and add the COPYING.LESSER boilerplate.

Update the package to the 1.2 release, 
http://e-x-a.org/codecrypt/files/codecrypt-1.2.tar.gz and I'll do the review

There are some files with bsd license, can you review them? to check that we are not incurring in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries

BSD (2 clause)
--------------
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/codecrypt-1.1/src/sha2.c
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/codecrypt-1.1/src/sha2.h

BSD (3 clause)
--------------
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/codecrypt-1.1/src/tiger.c
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/codecrypt-1.1/src/tiger.h

Comment 2 Christopher Meng 2013-05-26 06:30:06 UTC
New SRPM: http://cicku.me/codecrypt-1.2-1.fc20.src.rpm

Comment 3 Björn 'besser82' Esser 2013-05-26 13:00:20 UTC
Would you update the Spec/SRPM URL-Tags, please? Thoose tags are traced by `fedora-review`, so it will automagicly fetch the updated stuff.

Comment 4 Christopher Meng 2013-05-27 03:26:58 UTC
New Spec: http://cicku.me/codecrypt.spec
New SRPM: http://cicku.me/codecrypt-1.2-1.fc20.src.rpm

Comment 5 Björn 'besser82' Esser 2013-05-31 06:06:30 UTC
> There are some files with bsd license, can you review them? to check that we
> are not incurring in
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries
> 
> BSD (2 clause)
> --------------
> /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/codecrypt-1.1/
> src/sha2.c
> /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/codecrypt-1.1/
> src/sha2.h

***** BUNDLED LIB CONFIRMED *****
This is perfectly the same as provided by sha2(-devel) !!!

Make upstream aware of this and ask to add a check for a usable sha2.h / sha2-lib during configure, which only includes/links the sources-shipped sha2-files if no working sha2-lib is found.

tiger.{c,h} is NOT A DUPLICATE (checked against libtiger, cryptopp, botan)

Comment 6 Christopher Meng 2013-05-31 07:56:24 UTC
(In reply to Björn Esser from comment #5)
> ***** BUNDLED LIB CONFIRMED *****
> This is perfectly the same as provided by sha2(-devel) !!!
> 
> Make upstream aware of this and ask to add a check for a usable sha2.h /
> sha2-lib during configure, which only includes/links the sources-shipped
> sha2-files if no working sha2-lib is found.
> 
> tiger.{c,h} is NOT A DUPLICATE (checked against libtiger, cryptopp, botan)

Thanks, this should be done by myself...

Deeply appreciate your hard work!

I'll report this to upstream.

Comment 7 Mirek Kratochvil 2013-05-31 08:13:44 UTC
Hi everyone,

I was not aware that fedora has its own package for sha2, gonna add configure check asap.

Q: Is there some problem with copying RIPEMD-128 implementation as seen in src/ripemd128.[ch] ?

Thanks,
-mk

Comment 8 Eduardo Echeverria 2013-05-31 09:13:52 UTC
(In reply to Mirek Kratochvil from comment #7)
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I was not aware that fedora has its own package for sha2, gonna add
> configure check asap.
> 
> Q: Is there some problem with copying RIPEMD-128 implementation as seen in
> src/ripemd128.[ch] ?
> 
> Thanks,
> -mk

Hi Mirek, yes, apparently is part of beecrypt-devel, see the file marked with *

repoquery --list beecrypt-devel
/usr/include/beecrypt
/usr/include/beecrypt/aes.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/aesopt.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/api.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/base64.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/beecrypt.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/blockmode.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/blockpad.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/blowfish.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/blowfishopt.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/dhies.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/dldp.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/dlkp.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/dlpk.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/dlsvdp-dh.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/dsa.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/elgamal.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/endianness.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/entropy.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/fips186.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/gnu.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/hmac.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/hmacmd5.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/hmacsha1.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/hmacsha224.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/hmacsha256.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/hmacsha384.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/hmacsha512.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/md4.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/md5.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/memchunk.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/mp.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/mpbarrett.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/mpnumber.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/mpopt.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/mpprime.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/mtprng.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/pkcs1.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/pkcs12.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/ripemd128.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/ripemd160.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/ripemd256.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/ripemd320.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/rsa.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/rsakp.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/rsapk.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/sha1.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/sha1opt.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/sha224.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/sha256.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/sha2k32.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/sha2k64.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/sha384.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/sha512.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/timestamp.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/win.h
/usr/lib/libbeecrypt.so
/usr/share/doc/beecrypt-devel-4.2.1
/usr/share/doc/beecrypt-devel-4.2.1/BUGS
/usr/include/beecrypt
/usr/include/beecrypt/aes.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/aesopt.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/api.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/base64.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/beecrypt.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/blockmode.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/blockpad.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/blowfish.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/blowfishopt.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/dhies.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/dldp.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/dlkp.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/dlpk.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/dlsvdp-dh.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/dsa.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/elgamal.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/endianness.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/entropy.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/fips186.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/gnu.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/hmac.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/hmacmd5.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/hmacsha1.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/hmacsha224.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/hmacsha256.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/hmacsha384.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/hmacsha512.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/md4.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/md5.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/memchunk.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/mp.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/mpbarrett.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/mpnumber.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/mpopt.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/mpprime.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/mtprng.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/pkcs1.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/pkcs12.h
* /usr/include/beecrypt/ripemd128.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/ripemd160.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/ripemd256.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/ripemd320.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/rsa.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/rsakp.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/rsapk.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/sha1.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/sha1opt.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/sha224.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/sha256.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/sha2k32.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/sha2k64.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/sha384.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/sha512.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/timestamp.h
/usr/include/beecrypt/win.h
/usr/lib64/libbeecrypt.so
/usr/share/doc/beecrypt-devel-4.2.1
/usr/share/doc/beecrypt-devel-4.2.1/BUGS

Comment 9 Björn 'besser82' Esser 2013-05-31 11:07:25 UTC
> BSD (3 clause)
> --------------
> /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/codecrypt-1.1/
> src/tiger.c
> /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/codecrypt-1.1/
> src/tiger.h

***** BUNDLED LIB CONFIRMED *****
These are now available through freetiger, I just filed a review-bug for.

Comment 10 Björn 'besser82' Esser 2013-08-29 07:18:34 UTC
freetiger has been send out as an update for el5, el6, fc18, fc19.  Builds for fc20 and rawhide are made, too.

I just created the needed buildroot-overrides for all branches.  :)

Comment 11 Mirek Kratochvil 2013-09-15 14:28:12 UTC
Bump.

codecrypt-1.3.1 removes bundled libraries and instead adds dependency on crypto++ library which is already available as cryptopp fedora package.

Christopher, can you please create .srpm's for that version?

-mk

Comment 12 Package Review 2020-07-10 00:48:06 UTC
This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

Comment 13 Package Review 2020-08-10 00:46:59 UTC
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.