[Bug 465382] Review Request: bouncycastle-mail - Additional libraries for Bouncy Castle

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Oct 6 14:45:04 UTC 2008

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


Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp>  2008-10-06 10:45:03 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > * Naming
> >   - First of all, why is this srpm named as "bouncycastle-mail",
> >     not "bcmail"?
> > 
> Let me tell you the situation. The actual Bouncy Castle is a suite consisting
> of many libraries. bcprov* and bcmail are two of these libraries among many
> others. In Fedora, the bcprov library is already packed as
> "bouncycastle.<version>.rpm" but not "bcprov.<version>.rpm". 
> Let me know what you think.
  - It may be better that "Provides: bcmail = %{version}-%{release}" is
    added (if you think if it is worth doing)

> I added the if-clauses "%if %{with_gcj}" as the guidelines propose but this
> results in the rpmlint warning:
>    bouncycastle-mail.spec:98: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package  
> %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}
> which is a wrong warning because noarch does not apply to that line (is this an
> rpmlint bug?). Should I take those "%if %{with_gcj}" off from the spec file?**

  - Please ignore this rpmlint complaint for this case. You can also use
%if %{with_gcj}

> *bcprov is the main library. The other libraries depend on it and they don't
> mean anything without it.
  - Then perhaps "Requires: bouncycastle (= %{version})" is needed?

Other things are okay.
    This package (bouncycastle-mail) is APPROVED by mtasaka

By the way would you have some time to review my review request
(bug 465740)?

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

More information about the package-review mailing list