https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223990
--- Comment #7 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de --- (In reply to Andrew Beekhof from comment #4)
'invalid-url' is adequately explained in the spec file, although a link to the original tarball might be a good.
I don't think Fedora isn't allowed to promote potentially legally encumbered software directly, this is also why OpenSSL is hubbled (as the comment says). Given latest Fedora doesn't do this as well, I would raise FE-Legal here, if you insist to a link/URL to the original tarball.
Could I get some comment on 'strange-permission' and 'hidden-file-or-dir' though?
These files are created by something like fipscheck(1). They are treated as "hidden" because they start with a "." - which is how the concept works. But I don't know (and don't see) why there are treated as 'strange-permission'.
(In reply to Andrew Beekhof from comment #6)
wrt. man pages, does the new one differ much from the existing one? If not, perhaps create a simlink so that people can see what it is/does (without needing to know the original binary name).
Most of the man pages are the same or at least quite similar from what I can see. Given the old man pages will be anyway always there, I am not sure if it makes sense to supply the "new" ones being not really a benefit but having strange names (because otherwise they would conflict with the main openssl packages). The online documentation of OpenSSL is more up-to-date through. I think (if at all) it only makes sense for "man openssl101e" given that is the only binary being named different where one could expect another man page.
Something else left?