[Bug 197963] Review Request: bouncycastle

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: bouncycastle


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197963


fitzsim at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER           |ASSIGNED




------- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat.com  2006-07-10 17:31 EST -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> NEEDSWORK:
> - Buildroot should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

Done.

> - Remove Epoch: 0

Done.

> - Specifying 0 epoch on Requires and BuildRequires is not necessary.  Remove them.

Done.

> - RPM_BUILD_ROOT=bctmp aot-compile-rpm <-- what is this doing?  Why reset the
> buildroot?

Yeah, I realized I don't need this, it's already done by aot-compile-rpm in the
%install section.

> - Post and postun scripts should probably have logic for final removal vs
> upgrade.  As it stands you'll run rebuild-security-providers and rebuild-gcj-db
> twice every time you upgrade the package.  Once for the new package, and once
> for removing the old package.

OK.

> 
> rpmlint output:
> 
> E: bouncycastle zero-length
>
/etc/java/security/security.d/2000-org.bouncycastle.jce.provider.BouncyCastleProvider
> W: bouncycastle-debuginfo objdump-failed objdump:
>
/tmp/bouncycastle-debuginfo-1.33-1.x86_64.rpm.17761/usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/gcj/bouncycastle/bcprov-1.33.jar.so.debug:
> File format not recognized
> W: bouncycastle mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
> W: bouncycastle non-conffile-in-etc
>
/etc/java/security/security.d/2000-org.bouncycastle.jce.provider.BouncyCastleProvider
> W: bouncycastle objdump-failed objdump:
>
/tmp/bouncycastle-1.33-1.x86_64.rpm.17761/usr/lib64/gcj/bouncycastle/bcprov-1.33.jar.so:
> File format not recognized
> 
> The Zero length file, I see it just being touched.  Does it just need to exist?
>  If so, we can ignore the error.  However it should be marked as a config file.

The filename 2000-org.bouncycastle.jce.provider.BouncyCastleProvider is
interpreted by rebuild-security-providers as <provider priority>-<provider
package name>, and is used to rebuild /usr/lib/security/classpath.security.  Its
contents are meaningless.  I don't want to mark it as %config because then if
someone edits it and then updates, a backup file with the extension .rpmsave
will be created and will cause a bogus entry to appear in
/usr/lib/security/classpath.security.

> 
> Not sure about the objdump warnings.

I ran rpmlint (0.77-1.fc5) on my x86 workstation and didn't see those warnings.

I'll post the updated package shortly.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.