Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.

Bug 206494

Summary:	Review Request: ssss - Shamir's secret sharing scheme
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Paul Wouters <paul>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Jason Tibbitts <j>
Status:	CLOSED NEXTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2006-09-16 06:38:12 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	163779

Description Paul Wouters 2006-09-14 18:16:22 UTC

Spec URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/ssss/ssss.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/ssss/ssss-0.5-1.src.rpm
Description: 
ssss is an implementation of Shamir's secret sharing scheme.  ssss does
both: the generation of shares for a known secret and the reconstruction
of a secret using user provided shares.

Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2006-09-16 00:03:13 UTC

I understand why you can't use the makefile, but I don't understand
"$RPM_OPT_FLAGS/%{optflags}" on the gcc command line.  Surely you only need the
"$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" bit.  This is really the only blocker I see, so I'll go ahead
and approve and you can fix it when you check in.

Review:
* source files match upstream:
   24227252aa195a146d09de1df10357a1  ssss-0.5.tar.gz
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
? build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   ssss = 0.5-1.fc6
  =
   libgmp.so.3()(64bit)
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.

APPROVED, just fix the gcc command line.

Comment 2 Paul Wouters 2006-09-16 06:24:25 UTC

*** Bug 206492 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 3 Paul Wouters 2006-09-16 06:26:29 UTC

Thanks. It was already fixed in 0.5.0-2. Unfortunately, upon my first
submission, bugzilla timed out and I submitted again. Turned out both bugs made
it, and my comments were in the other one.

Thanks for the review and approval

Comment 4 Jason Tibbitts 2006-09-16 14:03:11 UTC

Oh, I apologize for not seeing that other ticket.