[Bug 990423] New: Review Request: libsodium - A fork of NaCl library with compatible APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
Bug ID: 990423 Summary: Review Request: libsodium - A fork of NaCl library with compatible APIs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: cickumqt@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://cicku.me/libsodium.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/libsodium-0.4.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: NaCl (pronounced "salt") is a new easy-to-use high-speed software library for network communication, encryption, decryption, signatures, etc.
NaCl's goal is to provide all of the core operations needed to build higher-level cryptographic tools.
Sodium is a portable, cross-compilable, installable, packageable fork of NaCl, with a compatible API. Fedora Account System Username: cicku
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423 Bug 990423 depends on bug 837050, which changed state.
Bug 837050 Summary: Review Request: nacl - Networking and Cryptography library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837050
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |vascom2@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- Instead of make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} you can use one macros %make_install
Not sure if I can do the review, I am quite new.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- I'm habituated to using make install directly but not macro.
Welcome review from any people, please go ahead.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net --- As this ticket comes flying by, here are only a few comments on documentation quality related issues.
Summary: A fork of NaCl library with compatible APIs
That's details the %description can explain.
You want the %summary to be more like a list of keywords a developer might search for (e.g. "networking", "cryptography"). Here is not much to find yet, unless the developer happens to know what "NaCl" refers to and that it doesn't refer to "sodium chloride" or "Google Native Client".
Making the summary more generic would be much better. Upstream github page calls it a "crypto library", for example (and it's okay that the advertise it being a fork, but that doesn't belong into Fedora's package summary). NaCl is short for
Summary: Networking and cryptography library
or if it needs to be a bit more verbose:
Summary: Library for network communication cryptography
%description NaCl (pronounced "salt") is a new easy-to-use high-speed software library [...]
Why does it start with expanding what "NaCl" means? It should start with explaining what it does or what it is. Currently, the description is the same as in package "nacl":
# yum info nacl|tail -5 Description : NaCl (pronounced "salt") is a new easy-to-use high-speed software : library for network communication, encryption, decryption, : signatures, etc. NaCl's goal is to provide all of the core : operations needed to build higher-level cryptographic tools.
So:
%description This is "Sodium", a portable, cross-compilable, installable, packageable networking and cryptography library. Its goal is to provide all of the core operations needed to build higher-level cryptographic tools.
It is a fork of "NaCl" (Networking and Cryptography library), with a compatible API.
%doc ChangeLog
It only says "git log is your friend.", which is less useful than a link to the upstream github log. Hence I would not include this file.
%doc README
It only says "See README.markdown", which is not included. It exists in upstream git, however.
%doc
There is no API documentation yet?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- No API docs yet, maybe upstream thinks that they've provided compatible API, just view Nacl's is OK, or whatever...
The useless doc issues have been submitted upstream.
Spec URL: http://cicku.me/libsodium.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/libsodium-0.4.2-2.fc20.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: libsodium - |Review Request: libsodium - |A fork of NaCl library with |A fork of networking and |compatible APIs |cryptography library with | |compatible APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
Craig Barnes craigbarnes85@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |craigbarnes85@gmail.com
--- Comment #5 from Craig Barnes craigbarnes85@gmail.com --- I'd anticipate this getting road-blocked, for the same reasons as https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=319901.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |837050
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | Depends On| |319901
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=319901 [Bug 319901] missing ec and ecparam commands in openssl package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mario.blaettermann@gmail.co | |m
--- Comment #8 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com --- @Jose, there was no response from Christopher's side for more than three months. Maybe it would be a good idea to reanimate your ticket in bug #1025972?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #9 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- Why?
Everyone have many things to do in the real life, me too.
I'll handle these bugs in recent days, I don't know why we need to be so hurried.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #10 from Jose Pedro Oliveira jpo@di.uminho.pt --- (In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #8)
@Jose, there was no response from Christopher's side for more than three months. Maybe it would be a good idea to reanimate your ticket in bug #1025972?
Actually, Christopher send me a direct mail on 2013-11-03 asking for issues with his specfile and I replied to it a couple of hours later as comment #7.
Regards, jpo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #11 from Jose Pedro Oliveira jpo@di.uminho.pt --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #9)
Why?
Everyone have many things to do in the real life, me too.
I'll handle these bugs in recent days, I don't know why we need to be so hurried.
Christopher,
We need libsodium in the repos to upgrade libzmq to version 4 and then czmq to version 2.
Do you need help to update the specfile? I don't mind sending a patch.
Regards, jpo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #12 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- (In reply to Jose Pedro Oliveira from comment #11)
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #9)
Why?
Everyone have many things to do in the real life, me too.
I'll handle these bugs in recent days, I don't know why we need to be so hurried.
Christopher,
We need libsodium in the repos to upgrade libzmq to version 4 and then czmq to version 2.
Do you need help to update the specfile? I don't mind sending a patch.
Regards, jpo
I have to go to class now, will update the package after 2 hours.
Sorry for being so "bad" ;)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #13 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- (In reply to Jose Pedro Oliveira from comment #7)
please add the test/default/*.c files (they can also serve as documentation)
I think that just including .c is not enough, I see one core3.c requires cmptest.h, so I want your idea again.
Except this, all fixed at:
Spec URL: http://cicku.me/libsodium.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/libsodium-0.4.5-1.fc21.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #14 from Jose Pedro Oliveira jpo@di.uminho.pt --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #13)
(In reply to Jose Pedro Oliveira from comment #7)
please add the test/default/*.c files (they can also serve as documentation)
I think that just including .c is not enough, I see one core3.c requires cmptest.h, so I want your idea again.
You can also include the header file. Just add the following line
%doc test/default/*.{c,h}
Except this, all fixed at:
Spec URL: http://cicku.me/libsodium.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/libsodium-0.4.5-1.fc21.src.rpm
* Do we need to increase the verbosity level of make (V=1)?
* Don't include the README file; the only one that matters is the README.markdown
* The specfile doesn't build for EPEL6. See comment #c7 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025972#c2
* Please add the ticket number to the changelog entry (in particular when specfiles changes are driven by feedback posted on bugzilla tickets)
/jpo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #15 from Jose Pedro Oliveira jpo@di.uminho.pt --- Specfile changes based on the previous comment:
--- libsodium.spec.chris 2013-11-20 03:50:41.000000000 +0000 +++ libsodium.spec 2013-11-20 12:13:15.240043289 +0000 @@ -23,9 +23,15 @@ %prep %setup -q
+# The change below, which is already merged in the upstream codebase, +# is only needed for RHEL6 which only has pkg-config 0.23 +%if 0%{?rhel} == 6 +sed -i 's|_pkg_min_version=0.25|_pkg_min_version=0.23|g' configure +%endif + %build %configure --disable-static -make %{?_smp_mflags} V=1 +make %{?_smp_mflags}
%install make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} @@ -39,10 +45,11 @@ %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
%files -%doc AUTHORS ChangeLog LICENSE README* THANKS +%doc AUTHORS ChangeLog LICENSE README.markdown THANKS %{_libdir}/libsodium.so.*
%files devel +%doc test/default/*.{c,h} %{_includedir}/sodium.h %{_includedir}/sodium/ %{_libdir}/libsodium.so @@ -51,6 +58,8 @@ %changelog * Wed Nov 20 2013 Christopher Meng rpm@cicku.me - 0.4.5-1 - New version. +- Package the new pkgconfig file. +- Small specfile improvements (#990423).
* Wed Jul 10 2013 Christopher Meng rpm@cicku.me - 0.4.2-2 - Drop useless files.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #16 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- (In reply to Jose Pedro Oliveira from comment #14)
%doc test/default/*.{c,h}
Fine.
- Do we need to increase the verbosity level of make (V=1)?
Yes, it's a MUST.
- Don't include the README file; the only one that matters is the README.markdown
Fine, dropped.
- The specfile doesn't build for EPEL6. See comment #c7 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025972#c2
You've said that it has been merged upstream, so why didn't they release with the fix?
- Please add the ticket number to the changelog entry (in particular when specfiles changes are driven by feedback posted on bugzilla tickets)
Well,
+- Package the new pkgconfig file.
1. Upstream started to provide a pkgconfig file, not me, I don't think we need to say about that(unless libsodium is already included in Fedora, but still not reasonable)
+- Small specfile improvements (#990423).
2. This is OK. But I never do this. Because I need bodhi to send comments to bugs from the latest changelog.
-------------------
Spec URL: http://cicku.me/libsodium.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/libsodium-0.4.5-2.fc21.src.rpm
PS if you want to take this review, please assign.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #17 from Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net ---
- Do we need to increase the verbosity level of make (V=1)?
Yes, it's a MUST.
Really? Please link the packaging/review guidelines more often than not.
Verbose build output is beneficial (so e.g. one can review build details for old/released packages by visiting the koji website), but it's not mandatory. Note that some package maintainers refuse to enable verbose build output, because they argue that verbose build logs contain too much noise.
Btw, 'V=1' does not work always. Sometimes --disable-silent-rules can be used. In other cases, one would need to patch Makefiles, some old makefiles still use the special .SILENT target.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rc040203@freenet.de
--- Comment #18 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #17)
- Do we need to increase the verbosity level of make (V=1)?
Yes, it's a MUST.
Verbose build output is beneficial
That's too weak. Without seeing each and every compiler call in verbosity it's impossible to verify whether a package is compiled correctly from build.logs.
In other words, using verbosity should be common sense to everybody.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #19 from Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net --- What I meant is it is not in the guidelines [yet]. Some reviewers ask for verbose build output (me included), but not because it's a MUST in the guidelines.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #20 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com --- taken
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #21 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com --- use %make_install instead of make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
%if 0%{?rhel} == 6 sed -i 's|_pkg_min_version=0.25|_pkg_min_version=0.23|g' configure %endif you have plans to support EL6? I don't like to support EL.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #22 from Jose Pedro Oliveira jpo@di.uminho.pt --- (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #21) ...
%if 0%{?rhel} == 6 sed -i 's|_pkg_min_version=0.25|_pkg_min_version=0.23|g' configure %endif you have plans to support EL6? I don't like to support EL.
We need libsodium in EPEL6 in order to package ZeroMQ v4: this package is now a new 0MQv4 requirement.
Note: see also comment #14 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025972#c2 .
/jpo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #23 from Jose Pedro Oliveira jpo@di.uminho.pt --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #16)
(In reply to Jose Pedro Oliveira from comment #14)
%doc test/default/*.{c,h}
---[snip]---
- The specfile doesn't build for EPEL6. See comment #c7 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025972#c2
You've said that it has been merged upstream, so why didn't they release with the fix?
Most likely upstream has better things to do than release a new libsodium version every time someone submits a patch that only affects a specific platform. Just look to the commits made since libsodium 0.4.5 was released: https://github.com/jedisct1/libsodium/commits/master
/jpo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #24 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #21)
use %make_install instead of make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
Inappreciable change IMO, I don't like using macro at here...
%if 0%{?rhel} == 6 sed -i 's|_pkg_min_version=0.25|_pkg_min_version=0.23|g' configure %endif you have plans to support EL6? I don't like to support EL.
Ah, they need this for 0mq...
Igor, hope you can do a full review and then tell us the results.
Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #25 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - (optional) Use %make_install instead of make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} - Add -p option to install scripts in Makefile
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 287 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/brain/990423-libsodium/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 102400 bytes in 48 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: libsodium-0.4.5-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm libsodium-devel-0.4.5-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm libsodium-0.4.5-2.fc20.src.rpm libsodium.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compilable -> comparable, compatible, compiler libsodium.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US installable -> install able, install-able, uninstallable libsodium.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US packageable -> package able, package-able, package's libsodium.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic libsodium.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compilable -> comparable, compatible, compiler libsodium.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US installable -> install able, install-able, uninstallable libsodium.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US packageable -> package able, package-able, package's libsodium.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint libsodium libsodium-devel libsodium.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compilable -> comparable, compatible, compiler libsodium.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US installable -> install able, install-able, uninstallable libsodium.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US packageable -> package able, package-able, package's libsodium.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- libsodium (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
libsodium-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libsodium(x86-64) libsodium.so.4()(64bit)
Provides -------- libsodium: libsodium libsodium(x86-64) libsodium.so.4()(64bit)
libsodium-devel: libsodium-devel libsodium-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libsodium)
Source checksums ---------------- http://download.libsodium.org/libsodium/releases/libsodium-0.4.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7ad5202df53eeac0eb29b064ae5d05b65d82b2fc1c082899c9c6a09b0ee1ac32 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7ad5202df53eeac0eb29b064ae5d05b65d82b2fc1c082899c9c6a09b0ee1ac32
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 990423 Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #26 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- Fixed.
-------------------
Spec URL: http://cicku.me/libsodium.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/libsodium-0.4.5-2.fc21.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #27 from Jose Pedro Oliveira jpo@di.uminho.pt --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #26)
Fixed.
Spec URL: http://cicku.me/libsodium.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/libsodium-0.4.5-2.fc21.src.rpm
Please add a changelog entry and bump the release.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #28 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- (In reply to Jose Pedro Oliveira from comment #27)
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #26)
Fixed.
Spec URL: http://cicku.me/libsodium.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/libsodium-0.4.5-2.fc21.src.rpm
Please add a changelog entry and bump the release.
I'm not prim and propper. It's just a trivial insertion of install -p, not a big change. Why should we waste time here?
Note I usually bump the version, but I don't want to do this this time. I want to speed up the review.
Hope you can understand.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #29 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com --- APPROVED.
P.S. Cristopher, use %make_install in the future!!! This doing beautiful specs;)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #30 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: libsodium Short Description: A fork of networking and cryptography library with compatible APIs Owners: cicku jpo Branches: f19 f20 el6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #31 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #32 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #28)
(In reply to Jose Pedro Oliveira from comment #27)
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #26)
Fixed.
Spec URL: http://cicku.me/libsodium.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/libsodium-0.4.5-2.fc21.src.rpm
Please add a changelog entry and bump the release.
I'm not prim and propper. It's just a trivial insertion of install -p, not a big change. Why should we waste time here?
To avoid reviewers to look into outdated *.src.rpms containing already fixed issues.
If you want it more formally: This is a MUST
Note I usually bump the version, but I don't want to do this this time. I want to speed up the review.
Hope you can understand.
No, your behavior is unfriendly towards reviewers - You are working sloppy.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #33 from Jose Pedro Oliveira jpo@di.uminho.pt --- (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #32)
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #28)
(In reply to Jose Pedro Oliveira from comment #27)
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #26)
Fixed.
Spec URL: http://cicku.me/libsodium.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/libsodium-0.4.5-2.fc21.src.rpm
Please add a changelog entry and bump the release.
I'm not prim and propper. It's just a trivial insertion of install -p, not a big change. Why should we waste time here?
To avoid reviewers to look into outdated *.src.rpms containing already fixed issues.
If you want it more formally: This is a MUST
Note I usually bump the version, but I don't want to do this this time. I want to speed up the review.
Hope you can understand.
No, your behavior is unfriendly towards reviewers - You are working sloppy.
I completely agree with Ralf: that's sloppy work. And let me add that reusing the same container file (.src.rpm) to ship different contents is a BLOCKER for me (different content file signatures => bump container NVR).
/jpo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
Susi Lehtola susi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |susi.lehtola@iki.fi
--- Comment #34 from Susi Lehtola susi.lehtola@iki.fi --- (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #29)
P.S. Cristopher, use %make_install in the future!!! This doing beautiful specs;)
This is a novel macro. But it is very ill named, since it's easy to confuse %make_install with %makeinstall which is not to be used.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #35 from Jose Pedro Oliveira jpo@di.uminho.pt --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #28)
(In reply to Jose Pedro Oliveira from comment #27)
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #26)
Fixed.
Spec URL: http://cicku.me/libsodium.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/libsodium-0.4.5-2.fc21.src.rpm
Please add a changelog entry and bump the release.
I'm not prim and propper. It's just a trivial insertion of install -p, not a big change. ...
To be pedantic, theses are the changes you made to the specfile since 2013-11-20: --------- diff -r -Nup old/libsodium-0.4.5-2.fc21.i686/libsodium.spec new/libsodium-0.4.5-2.fc21.i686/libsodium.spec --- old/libsodium-0.4.5-2.fc21.i686/libsodium.spec 2013-11-20 12:43:52.000000000 +0000 +++ new/libsodium-0.4.5-2.fc21.i686/libsodium.spec 2013-12-09 08:24:32.000000000 +0000 @@ -28,11 +28,11 @@ sed -i 's|_pkg_min_version=0.25|_pkg_min %endif
%build -%configure --disable-static -make %{?_smp_mflags} V=1 +%configure --disable-static --disable-silent-rules +make %{?_smp_mflags}
%install -make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} +make install INSTALL="install -p" DESTDIR=%{buildroot} find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' -delete
%check ----------
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #36 from Jose Pedro Oliveira jpo@di.uminho.pt --- Christopher,
Please do a proper specfile/SRPM update.
/jpo
PS - And don't forget to add this ticket number to the changelog entry.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libsodium-0.4.5-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libsodium-0.4.5-3.el6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libsodium-0.4.5-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libsodium-0.4.5-3.fc19
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #39 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libsodium-0.4.5-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libsodium-0.4.5-3.fc20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libsodium-0.4.5-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |libsodium-0.4.5-3.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2013-12-19 21:03:33
--- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libsodium-0.4.5-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|libsodium-0.4.5-3.fc20 |libsodium-0.4.5-3.fc19
--- Comment #42 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libsodium-0.4.5-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|libsodium-0.4.5-3.fc19 |libsodium-0.4.5-3.el6
--- Comment #43 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libsodium-0.4.5-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
Thomas Spura tomspur@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1045884
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045884 [Bug 1045884] [Tracking ticket] - Update to ZeroMQ v4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
Christopher Meng i@cicku.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |erik@saltstack.com
--- Comment #44 from Christopher Meng i@cicku.me --- *** Bug 1113311 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
Christopher Meng i@cicku.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #45 from Christopher Meng i@cicku.me --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: libsodium New Branches: el5 Owners: terminalmage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #46 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Any comments from the primary maintainers?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
Christopher Meng i@cicku.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #47 from Christopher Meng i@cicku.me --- Well, I'm the primary maintainer, and I requested the cvs for him.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423
--- Comment #48 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423 Bug 990423 depends on bug 837050, which changed state.
Bug 837050 Summary: Review Request: nacl - Networking and Cryptography library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837050
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|ERRATA |---
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla