https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244729
Bug ID: 2244729 Summary: Review Request: aespipe - AES encrypting or decrypting pipe Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: hladky.jiri@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jhladky.fedorapeople.org/aespipe.spec SRPM URL: https://jhladky.fedorapeople.org/aespipe-2.4f-2.fc40.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 loop-back kernel module.
Fedora Account System Username: jhladky
References: [releng] Issue #11720: Unretire rpms/aespipe https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243029 - Please unretire rpms/aespipe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244729
Jiri Hladky hladky.jiri@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |hladky.jiri@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244729
--- Comment #1 from Jiri Hladky hladky.jiri@gmail.com --- Please note that this related to request to unretire rpms/aespipe.
Aespipe was included in Fedora upto version 33. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/aespipe#
In Fedora-34, build process got broken because of GCC bug. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=10847
Now the GCC bug was identified and WA was added to the SPEC file. I would like to revive the aespipe package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244729
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |http://loop-aes.sourceforge | |.net/
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6540710 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244729
Jiri Hladky hladky.jiri@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard| |Unretirement
--- Comment #3 from Jiri Hladky hladky.jiri@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://jhladky.fedorapeople.org/aespipe.spec SRPM URL: https://jhladky.fedorapeople.org/aespipe-2.4g-1.fc40.src.rpm
I have contacted the author and he has updated the sources to automatically add -fno-strict-aliasing compiler flag to WA GCC bug.
I have updated tyhe SPEC file to use the latest sources and removed the WA from the spec file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244729
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1995245 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1995245&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6540710 to 6559462
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244729
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6559462 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244729
--- Comment #6 from Jiri Hladky hladky.jiri@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://jhladky.fedorapeople.org/aespipe.spec SRPM URL: https://jhladky.fedorapeople.org/aespipe-2.4g-1.fc40.src.rpm
I have updated the License field in the spec file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244729
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1995348 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1995348&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6559462 to 6563212
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244729
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6563212 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244729
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |ngompa13@gmail.com CC| |ngompa13@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #9 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Taking this review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244729
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #10 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Initial spec review:
Source: http://loop-aes.sourceforge.net/aespipe/aespipe-v%%7Bversion%7D.tar.bz2
This can be simplified to "%{url}/aespipe/aespipe-v%{version}.tar.bz2"
BuildRequires: gcc
You also need a "BuildRequires: make" line too.
%setup -q -n %{name}-v%{version}
You could use "%autosetup -p1 -n %{name}-v%{version}" instead, which may be useful if you will want patches to auto-apply in the future.
%{_mandir}/man1/*
This is too greedy, please use "%{_mandir}/man1/aespipe.1*" instead.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244729
--- Comment #11 from Jiri Hladky hladky.jiri@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review and tips!
I have updated the SPEC file accordingly. The package builds fine:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108139072
Updated SPEC and SRPMs files: Spec URL: https://jhladky.fedorapeople.org/aespipe.spec SRPM URL: https://jhladky.fedorapeople.org/aespipe-2.4g-1.fc40.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244729
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6567935 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244729
--- Comment #13 from Jiri Hladky hladky.jiri@gmail.com --- Hi Neal,
could you please review the updated SPEC file? I have incorporated the proposed improvements - see the comments above.
Thanks Jirka
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244729
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Review notes:
* Package follows Fedora Packaging Guidelines * Package builds and installs * Package licensing is correctly handled * No serious issues from rpmlint
PACKAGE APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244729
--- Comment #15 from Jiri Hladky hladky.jiri@gmail.com --- Neal, THANK YOU for the review!
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org