https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290339
Bug ID: 1290339 Summary: Review Request: curve25519-java - Implementation of Curve25519 in Java Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: puntogil@libero.it QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/curve25519-java.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/curve25519-java-0.1.0-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: Java port of Matthijs van Duin's implementation of Daniel J Bernstein's Curve25519. Fedora Account System Username: gil
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12135986
sshj dependency new url https://github.com/hierynomus/sshj/tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290339
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- gil's scratch build of curve25519-java-0.1.0-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12135986
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290339
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |652183 (FE-JAVASIG)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290339
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1290342
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342 [Bug 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290339
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1290344
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290344 [Bug 1290344] sshj-0.15.0 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290339
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/curve25519-java.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/curve25519-java-0.1.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290339
Luya Tshimbalanga luya@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |luya@fedoraproject.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |luya@fedoraproject.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290339
Luya Tshimbalanga luya@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290339
Luya Tshimbalanga luya@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya@fedoraproject.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 %license. [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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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
Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven: [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even when building with ant [x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping [x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage- utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
===== 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. [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in curve25519-java-javadoc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Java: [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: curve25519-java-0.1.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm curve25519-java-javadoc-0.1.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm curve25519-java-0.1.0-1.fc24.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Requires -------- curve25519-java-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils
curve25519-java (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils
Provides -------- curve25519-java-javadoc: curve25519-java-javadoc
curve25519-java: curve25519-java mvn(org.zeromq:curve25519-java) mvn(org.zeromq:curve25519-java:pom:) osgi(org.zeromq.curve25519-java)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/trevorbernard/curve25519-java/archive/v0.1.0/curve25519-j... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0d190edf26e73281d8942bfb2e849acae210debe1d4f84cef255d36fd9693f38 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0d190edf26e73281d8942bfb2e849acae210debe1d4f84cef255d36fd9693f38 http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30
Based on the review, this package is APPROVED!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290339
--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Thanks for the review!
create new SCM requests: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/7936
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290339
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290339
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/curve25519-java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290339
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |curve25519-java-0.1.0-1.fc2 | |6 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2016-09-26 09:08:14
--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15809250
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org