1356739 – Review Request: zulucrypt - Qt GUI front end to cryptsetup

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 1356739 - Review Request: zulucrypt - Qt GUI front end to cryptsetup

Summary: Review Request: zulucrypt - Qt GUI front end to cryptsetup

Keywords:
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA
Alias:	None
Product:	Fedora
Classification:	Fedora
Component:	Package Review
Sub Component:
Version:	rawhide
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Priority:	medium
Severity:	medium
Target Milestone:	---
Assignee:	gil cattaneo
QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Docs Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:	1356657
Blocks:	qt-reviews
TreeView+	depends on / blocked

Reported:	2016-07-14 22:21 UTC by Raphael Groner
Modified:	2016-09-22 18:50 UTC (History)
CC List:	2 users (show)
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:	2016-09-22 18:50:00 UTC
Type:	---
Embargoed:
Dependent Products:
Flags:	puntogil: fedora-review+

Attachments	(Terms of Use)
unbundle lxqtwallet (5.30 KB, patch) 2016-07-17 15:27 UTC, Raphael Groner	no flags	Details \| Diff
Show Obsolete (1) View All

Description Raphael Groner 2016-07-14 22:21:27 UTC

Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/util/zulucrypt.spec
SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/util/zulucrypt-5.0.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Qt GUI front end to cryptsetup
zuluCrypt is a front end to cryptsetup.
It makes it easier to use cryptsetup by providing
a Qt-based GUI and a simpler to use CLI front end
to cryptsetup.

Fedora Account System Username: raphgro

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14899617

Note: Unbundling of lxqt-wallet and tcplay is currently not possible cause of internal headers being used.

Comment 1 gil cattaneo 2016-07-15 09:08:12 UTC

Maybe you could remove from the BRs list:

BuildRequires:  gcc
BuildRequires:  gcc-c++
BuildRequires:  glibc-devel

cause: are installed by default

and change
BuildRequires:  device-mapper-devel  -> pkgconfig(devmapper)
BuildRequires:  libblkid-devel       -> pkgconfig(blkid)
BuildRequires:  libpwquality-devel   -> pkgconfig(pwquality)
BuildRequires:  cryptsetup-devel     -> pkgconfig(libcryptsetup)

Comment 2 gil cattaneo 2016-07-15 09:30:47 UTC

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
  are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: gcc gcc-c++
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
- update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package
  contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry.
  Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in zulucrypt
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-
  database


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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: "GPL", "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or
     later)", "Unknown or generated". 53 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/gil/1356739-zulucrypt/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
     contains icons.
     Note: icons in zulucrypt
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 6 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
     desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: 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 (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     zulucrypt-libs , zulucrypt-devel , zulucrypt-doc , zulucrypt-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[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.
[?]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: zulucrypt-5.0.0-1.fc25.i686.rpm
          zulucrypt-libs-5.0.0-1.fc25.i686.rpm
          zulucrypt-devel-5.0.0-1.fc25.i686.rpm
          zulucrypt-doc-5.0.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm
          zulucrypt-debuginfo-5.0.0-1.fc25.i686.rpm
          zulucrypt-5.0.0-1.fc25.src.rpm
zulucrypt.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cryptsetup -> crypt setup, crypt-setup, Cryptozoic
zulucrypt.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptsetup -> crypt setup, crypt-setup, Cryptozoic
zulucrypt.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US truecrypt -> true crypt, true-crypt, encrypt
zulucrypt.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sudo -> suds, ludo, sumo
zulucrypt-libs.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptsetup -> crypt setup, crypt-setup, Cryptozoic
zulucrypt-libs.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unmounting -> mounting, unstinting, mountain
zulucrypt-libs.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libzuluCrypt-exe.so.1.2.0 exit
zulucrypt-libs.i686: W: no-documentation
zulucrypt-libs.i686: E: postun-without-ldconfig /usr/lib/libzuluCryptPluginManager.so.1.0.0
zulucrypt-libs.i686: E: postun-without-ldconfig /usr/lib/libzuluCrypt-exe.so.1.2.0
zulucrypt-libs.i686: E: postun-without-ldconfig /usr/lib/libzuluCrypt.so.1.2.0
zulucrypt-libs.i686: E: non-empty-%postun /sbin/ldconfig
zulucrypt-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
zulucrypt.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cryptsetup -> crypt setup, crypt-setup, Cryptozoic
zulucrypt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptsetup -> crypt setup, crypt-setup, Cryptozoic
zulucrypt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US truecrypt -> true crypt, true-crypt, encrypt
zulucrypt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sudo -> suds, ludo, sumo
zulucrypt.src:60: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(md5-openssl)
zulucrypt.src:161: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
zulucrypt.src:161: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir}
zulucrypt.src:161: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
zulucrypt.src:161: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir}
zulucrypt.src:161: W: macro-in-comment %{srcname}
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 19 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: zulucrypt-debuginfo-5.0.0-1.fc25.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
zulucrypt.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cryptsetup -> crypt setup, crypt-setup, Cryptozoic
zulucrypt.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptsetup -> crypt setup, crypt-setup, Cryptozoic
zulucrypt.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US truecrypt -> true crypt, true-crypt, encrypt
zulucrypt.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sudo -> suds, ludo, sumo
zulucrypt-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
zulucrypt-libs.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptsetup -> crypt setup, crypt-setup, Cryptozoic
zulucrypt-libs.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unmounting -> mounting, unstinting, mountain
zulucrypt-libs.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libzuluCrypt-exe.so.1.2.0 /lib/libgcrypt.so.20
zulucrypt-libs.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libzuluCrypt-exe.so.1.2.0 exit
zulucrypt-libs.i686: W: no-documentation
zulucrypt-libs.i686: E: postun-without-ldconfig /usr/lib/libzuluCryptPluginManager.so.1.0.0
zulucrypt-libs.i686: E: postun-without-ldconfig /usr/lib/libzuluCrypt-exe.so.1.2.0
zulucrypt-libs.i686: E: postun-without-ldconfig /usr/lib/libzuluCrypt.so.1.2.0
zulucrypt-libs.i686: E: non-empty-%postun /sbin/ldconfig
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 10 warnings.



Requires
--------
zulucrypt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    hicolor-icon-theme
    libKF5Notifications.so.5
    libKF5Wallet.so.5
    libQt5Core.so.5
    libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)
    libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.6)
    libQt5Gui.so.5
    libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)
    libQt5Network.so.5
    libQt5Network.so.5(Qt_5)
    libQt5Widgets.so.5
    libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)
    libblkid.so.1
    libblkid.so.1(BLKID_1.0)
    libblkid.so.1(BLKID_2.15)
    libblkid.so.1(BLKID_2.17)
    libc.so.6
    libcryptsetup.so.4
    libgcc_s.so.1
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)
    libgcrypt.so.20
    libgcrypt.so.20(GCRYPT_1.6)
    libgio-2.0.so.0
    libglib-2.0.so.0
    libgobject-2.0.so.0
    libm.so.6
    libpthread.so.0
    libpwquality.so.1
    libpwquality.so.1(LIBPWQUALITY_1.0)
    libsecret-1.so.0
    libstdc++.so.6
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)
    libzuluCrypt-exe.so.1.2.0
    libzuluCrypt.so.1.2.0
    libzuluCryptPluginManager.so.1.0.0
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    zulucrypt-libs(x86-32)

zulucrypt-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libzuluCrypt-exe.so.1.2.0
    libzuluCrypt.so.1.2.0
    libzuluCryptPluginManager.so.1.0.0
    zulucrypt-libs(x86-32)

zulucrypt-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /sbin/ldconfig
    libKF5Notifications.so.5
    libKF5Wallet.so.5
    libQt5Core.so.5
    libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)
    libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.6)
    libQt5Gui.so.5
    libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)
    libQt5Widgets.so.5
    libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)
    libblkid.so.1
    libblkid.so.1(BLKID_1.0)
    libblkid.so.1(BLKID_2.15)
    libblkid.so.1(BLKID_2.17)
    libc.so.6
    libcryptsetup.so.4
    libcryptsetup.so.4(CRYPTSETUP_1.0)
    libgcc_s.so.1
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)
    libgcrypt.so.20
    libgcrypt.so.20(GCRYPT_1.6)
    libgio-2.0.so.0
    libglib-2.0.so.0
    libgobject-2.0.so.0
    libm.so.6
    libpthread.so.0
    libsecret-1.so.0
    libstdc++.so.6
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)
    libzuluCrypt.so.1.2.0
    libzuluCryptPluginManager.so.1.0.0
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

zulucrypt-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

zulucrypt-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
zulucrypt:
    application()
    application(zuluCrypt.desktop)
    application(zuluMount.desktop)
    bundled(lxqt-wallet)
    bundled(md5-openssl)
    bundled(tcplay)
    zulucrypt
    zulucrypt(x86-32)

zulucrypt-devel:
    pkgconfig(libzuluCrypt)
    zulucrypt-devel
    zulucrypt-devel(x86-32)

zulucrypt-libs:
    libzuluCrypt-exe.so.1.2.0
    libzuluCrypt.so.1.2.0
    libzuluCryptPluginManager.so.1.0.0
    zulucrypt-libs
    zulucrypt-libs(x86-32)

zulucrypt-doc:
    zulucrypt-doc

zulucrypt-debuginfo:
    zulucrypt-debuginfo
    zulucrypt-debuginfo(x86-32)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/mhogomchungu/zuluCrypt/archive/5.0.0/zulucrypt-5.0.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 949eb7f2d6489d22b2e669509ce74241edbe590617fb1df1d35c357c1fbd2f61
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 949eb7f2d6489d22b2e669509ce74241edbe590617fb1df1d35c357c1fbd2f61


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1356739 --plugins C/C++ -m fedora-rawhide-i386
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Comment 3 gil cattaneo 2016-07-15 09:33:56 UTC

Issues:

- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
  are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: gcc gcc-c++
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
- update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package
  contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry.
  Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in zulucrypt
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-
  database

i not sure what happen with
zulucrypt-libs.i686: E: postun-without-ldconfig /usr/lib/libzuluCryptPluginManager.so.1.0.0
zulucrypt-libs.i686: E: postun-without-ldconfig /usr/lib/libzuluCrypt-exe.so.1.2.0
zulucrypt-libs.i686: E: postun-without-ldconfig /usr/lib/libzuluCrypt.so.1.2.0
zulucrypt-libs.i686: E: non-empty-%postun /sbin/ldconfig

Comment 4 gil cattaneo 2016-07-15 14:14:22 UTC

have time for this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1354118 ?

Comment 5 Raphael Groner 2016-07-15 18:55:31 UTC

> [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.

What do you mean?

Provides
--------
zulucrypt:
    application()
    application(zuluCrypt.desktop)
    application(zuluMount.desktop)
    bundled(lxqt-wallet)
    bundled(md5-openssl)
    bundled(tcplay)
    zulucrypt
    zulucrypt(x86-32)

> [?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
> [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
>      files.

I don't understand. What should I fix?

Comment 6 gil cattaneo 2016-07-15 19:06:11 UTC

(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #5)
> > [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> Provides
> --------
> zulucrypt:
>     application()
>     application(zuluCrypt.desktop)
>     application(zuluMount.desktop)
>     bundled(lxqt-wallet)
>     bundled(md5-openssl)
>     bundled(tcplay)
>     zulucrypt
>     zulucrypt(x86-32)
> 
> > [?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
> > [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
> >      files.
> 
> I don't understand. What should I fix?

see Comment#3

Comment 7 gil cattaneo 2016-07-15 19:06:58 UTC

 ..and also Comment#1

Comment 8 gil cattaneo 2016-07-15 19:10:23 UTC

under public domain
zuluCrypt-5.0.0/zuluCrypt-gui/md5/md5.c
zuluCrypt-5.0.0/zuluCrypt-gui/md5/md5.h
from http://openwall.info/wiki/people/solar/software/public-domain-source-code/md5

Comment 9 gil cattaneo 2016-07-15 19:13:04 UTC

report this notice

/*
 * This routine is part of libc.  We include it nevertheless,
 * since the libc version has some security flaws.
 *
 * TODO: use canonicalize_file_name() when exist in glibc
 */
zuluCrypt-5.0.0/zuluCrypt-cli/lib/canonicalize/canonicalize.c


zuluCrypt-5.0.0/zuluCrypt-cli/lib/canonicalize/canonicalize.h

Comment 10 gil cattaneo 2016-07-15 20:18:22 UTC

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets?rd=Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database

Comment 11 Raphael Groner 2016-07-16 07:27:51 UTC

Forwarding an e-mail I got from upstream:

Greetings from founder and current maintainer of zuluCrypt.

I usually google "zuluCrypt" to see what is out there and google led
me to your effort of packaging zuluCrypt for fedora here[1] and i have
a few comments that i think will get you in your effort.

1. It is currently not possible to use upstream version of tcplay with
zuluCrypt. Upstream seems to have lost interest in the project and i
have extended my "personal" copy of the library in incompatible ways.
For example,upstream version does not have this[2] pull request but my
copy has it.My copy extended this pull request to add unlocking
VeraCrypt volumes that uses a PIM value.A bunch of APIs like this[3]
one are also not in the upstream version. Upstream seems uninterested
in the project and i have not attempted to offer them upstream because
of it.

2. It should be possible to cleanly unbundle "lxqt_wallet" since
zuluCrypt only uses lxqt_wallet documented API.Will add a config
option shortly to build using an external version.

3. If you dont want to have zulu*-cli CLI components as suid-root
binaries(offers best user experience in my opinion),look at what
debian[4] is doing to have the second best user experience. With the
"debian way",a user clicks an icon and they get a polkit prompt to
root authenticate before they start the application with root's
privileges but they still wont be able to do everything since the user
that
invokes the application is remembered and the application will do only
what that user is allowed to do.This is done through pkexec[5].

I think this should be enought for now.

Thank you for packaging my project for fedora.

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356739

[2] https://github.com/bwalex/tc-play/pull/65

[3] https://github.com/mhogomchungu/zuluCrypt/blob/6653c8d465470d862c18baee3287b0cb91158fe0/external_libraries/tc-play/tcplay_api.h#L57

[4] https://github.com/marciosouza20/zulucrypt

[5] https://github.com/marciosouza20/zulucrypt/blob/master/zuluCrypt-gui-pkexec

Comment 12 Raphael Groner 2016-07-17 15:27:33 UTC

Created attachment 1180782 [details]
unbundle lxqtwallet

Unbundle lxqt-wallet.

Patch got from upstream.

Comment 13 Raphael Groner 2016-07-23 12:29:03 UTC

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #9)
> report this notice
> 
> /*
>  * This routine is part of libc.  We include it nevertheless,
>  * since the libc version has some security flaws.
>  *
>  * TODO: use canonicalize_file_name() when exist in glibc
>  */
> zuluCrypt-5.0.0/zuluCrypt-cli/lib/canonicalize/canonicalize.c
> 
> 
> zuluCrypt-5.0.0/zuluCrypt-cli/lib/canonicalize/canonicalize.h

https://github.com/mhogomchungu/zuluCrypt/issues/41

Comment 14 gil cattaneo 2016-07-23 12:53:57 UTC

(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #13)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #9)
> > report this notice
> > 
> > /*
> >  * This routine is part of libc.  We include it nevertheless,
> >  * since the libc version has some security flaws.
> >  *
> >  * TODO: use canonicalize_file_name() when exist in glibc
> >  */
> > zuluCrypt-5.0.0/zuluCrypt-cli/lib/canonicalize/canonicalize.c
> > 
> > 
> > zuluCrypt-5.0.0/zuluCrypt-cli/lib/canonicalize/canonicalize.h
> 
> https://github.com/mhogomchungu/zuluCrypt/issues/41

perhaps, it would not be enough to add Provides: bundled(glibc) or what is ...
also for this and should update license field

Comment 15 Raphael Groner 2016-07-23 20:58:48 UTC

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #14)
…
> > https://github.com/mhogomchungu/zuluCrypt/issues/41
> 
> perhaps, it would not be enough to add Provides: bundled(glibc) or what is
> ...
> also for this and should update license field

There's a patch now to use external glibc function. I'll apply it.

(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #12)
> Created attachment 1180782 [details]
> unbundle lxqtwallet
> 
> Unbundle lxqt-wallet.
> 
> Patch got from upstream.

This patch is incomplete. I wrote an e-mail to upstream to get it working with
'rm -r zuluCrypt-gui/lxqt_wallet'.

(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #11)
…
> 1. It is currently not possible to use upstream version of tcplay with
> zuluCrypt. Upstream seems to have lost interest in the project and i
> have extended my "personal" copy of the library in incompatible ways.
> For example,upstream version does not have this[2] pull request but my
> copy has it.My copy extended this pull request to add unlocking
> VeraCrypt volumes that uses a PIM value.A bunch of APIs like this[3]
> one are also not in the upstream version. Upstream seems uninterested
> in the project and i have not attempted to offer them upstream because
> of it.

We've to discuss that with the maintainer of the tcplay package. Maybe we can add the patches and fully unbundle from the zuluCrypt package.

> 2. It should be possible to cleanly unbundle "lxqt_wallet" since
> zuluCrypt only uses lxqt_wallet documented API.Will add a config
> option shortly to build using an external version.

See above.

> 3. If you dont want to have zulu*-cli CLI components as suid-root
> binaries(offers best user experience in my opinion),look at what
> debian[4] is doing to have the second best user experience. With the
> "debian way",a user clicks an icon and they get a polkit prompt to
> root authenticate before they start the application with root's
> privileges but they still wont be able to do everything since the user
> that
> invokes the application is remembered and the application will do only
> what that user is allowed to do.This is done through pkexec[5].

IMHO that should be handled in another package review for zulucrypt-pkexec (or the like) because it's a new upstream.

Comment 16 Raphael Groner 2016-08-04 19:00:03 UTC

1. It is currently not possible to use upstream version of tcplay with
zuluCrypt. Upstream seems to have lost interest in the project and i
have extended my "personal" copy of the library in incompatible ways.
For example,upstream version does not have this[2] pull request but my
copy has it.My copy extended this pull request to add unlocking
VeraCrypt volumes that uses a PIM value.A bunch of APIs like this[3]
one are also not in the upstream version. Upstream seems uninterested
in the project and i have not attempted to offer them upstream because
of it.

How to proceed with this?
a. Bundle (embedded) tc-play fork.
b. Remove tc-play sources and so drop feature completely for truecrypt and veracrypt.
c. Wait for tc-play maintainer to apply patch in the package.

I tend to prefer b for now, in long term try to achieve c.

Comment 17 Raphael Groner 2016-08-04 20:53:27 UTC

SPEC: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/util/zulucrypt.spec
SRPM: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/util/zulucrypt-5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.fc24.src.rpm

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15134015

%changelog
* Fri Jul 22 2016 Raphael Groner <> - 5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.fc25
- switch to git snapshot to include all latest upstream patches
- unbundle lxqt-wallet
- prepare to unbundle tcplay
- drop hack for desktop-file-validate, upstream issue#42
- add polkit
- split cli into console subpackage
- move licenses and general documentation into libs subpackage
- fix incorrect desktop files
- use BR: pkgconfig() where applicable
- drop default dependencies
- add scriptlets for MimeType key
- drop scriptlets option -p to not confuse rpmlint
- note Public Domain for bundled md5-openssl
- note GPLv3+ and GPLv2+ partly in source files
- fix find_lang
- drop chrpath (previously commented)

Comment 18 gil cattaneo 2016-08-05 07:30:12 UTC

%if %{with bundle_tcplay}
Provides:       bundled(tcplay) = 2.0
%else
#BuildRequires:  tcplay-devel >= 2.0
%endif

should be changed in:
%if %{with bundle_tcplay}
BuildRequires:  tcplay-devel >= 2.0
%else
Provides:       bundled(tcplay) = 2.0
%endif

cause bundle tcplay is still use during the build

Comment 19 gil cattaneo 2016-08-05 07:41:45 UTC

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
  are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: gcc gcc-c++
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
 IGNORE


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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: "GPL", "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or
     generated". 42 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/gil/1356739-zulucrypt/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
 See Comment#18
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
     contains icons.
     Note: icons in zulucrypt
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 6 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
     desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
     Note: Multiple Release: tags found
[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

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: 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 (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     zulucrypt-console , zulucrypt-libs , zulucrypt-devel , zulucrypt-doc ,
     zulucrypt-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
  See @ line 188 of the spec file, maybe you should also use "-p"
[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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: zulucrypt-5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.fc26.i686.rpm
          zulucrypt-console-5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.fc26.i686.rpm
          zulucrypt-libs-5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.fc26.i686.rpm
          zulucrypt-devel-5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.fc26.i686.rpm
          zulucrypt-doc-5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.fc26.noarch.rpm
          zulucrypt-debuginfo-5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.fc26.i686.rpm
          zulucrypt-5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.fc26.src.rpm
zulucrypt.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cryptsetup -> crypt setup, crypt-setup, Cryptozoic
zulucrypt.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptsetup -> crypt setup, crypt-setup, Cryptozoic
zulucrypt.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end
zulucrypt.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US truecrypt -> true crypt, true-crypt, encrypt
zulucrypt.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sudo -> suds, ludo, sumo
zulucrypt.i686: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.fc25 ['5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.fc26', '5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db']
zulucrypt.i686: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/zuluCrypt.desktop pkexec
zulucrypt.i686: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/zuluMount.desktop pkexec
zulucrypt-console.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontends -> front ends, front-ends, fronds
zulucrypt-console.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subpackage -> sub package, sub-package, package's
zulucrypt-libs.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptsetup -> crypt setup, crypt-setup, Cryptozoic
zulucrypt-libs.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unmounting -> mounting, unstinting, mountain
zulucrypt-libs.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libzuluCrypt-exe.so.1.2.0 exit
zulucrypt-libs.i686: W: one-line-command-in-%post /sbin/ldconfig
zulucrypt-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
zulucrypt.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cryptsetup -> crypt setup, crypt-setup, Cryptozoic
zulucrypt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptsetup -> crypt setup, crypt-setup, Cryptozoic
zulucrypt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end
zulucrypt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US truecrypt -> true crypt, true-crypt, encrypt
zulucrypt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sudo -> suds, ludo, sumo
zulucrypt.src:75: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(md5-openssl)
zulucrypt.src:160: W: macro-in-comment %{_includedir}
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 22 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: zulucrypt-debuginfo-5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.fc26.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
zulucrypt-libs.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptsetup -> crypt setup, crypt-setup, Cryptozoic
zulucrypt-libs.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unmounting -> mounting, unstinting, mountain
zulucrypt-libs.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libzuluCrypt-exe.so.1.2.0 /lib/libgcrypt.so.20
zulucrypt-libs.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libzuluCrypt-exe.so.1.2.0 exit
zulucrypt-libs.i686: W: one-line-command-in-%post /sbin/ldconfig
zulucrypt.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cryptsetup -> crypt setup, crypt-setup, Cryptozoic
zulucrypt.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptsetup -> crypt setup, crypt-setup, Cryptozoic
zulucrypt.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end
zulucrypt.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US truecrypt -> true crypt, true-crypt, encrypt
zulucrypt.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sudo -> suds, ludo, sumo
zulucrypt.i686: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.fc25 ['5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.fc26', '5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db']
zulucrypt-console.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontends -> front ends, front-ends, fronds
zulucrypt-console.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subpackage -> sub package, sub-package, package's
zulucrypt-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings.



Requires
--------
zulucrypt-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

zulucrypt-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    libblkid.so.1
    libblkid.so.1(BLKID_1.0)
    libblkid.so.1(BLKID_2.15)
    libblkid.so.1(BLKID_2.17)
    libc.so.6
    libcryptsetup.so.4
    libcryptsetup.so.4(CRYPTSETUP_1.0)
    libgcrypt.so.20
    libgcrypt.so.20(GCRYPT_1.6)
    libpthread.so.0
    libzuluCrypt.so.1.2.0
    libzuluCryptPluginManager.so.1.0.0
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

zulucrypt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    hicolor-icon-theme
    libQt5Core.so.5
    libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)
    libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.7)
    libQt5Gui.so.5
    libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)
    libQt5Network.so.5
    libQt5Network.so.5(Qt_5)
    libQt5Widgets.so.5
    libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)
    libblkid.so.1
    libblkid.so.1(BLKID_1.0)
    libc.so.6
    libgcc_s.so.1
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)
    libgcrypt.so.20
    libgcrypt.so.20(GCRYPT_1.6)
    libgio-2.0.so.0
    libglib-2.0.so.0
    libgobject-2.0.so.0
    liblxqt-wallet.so.3.0.0
    libm.so.6
    libpthread.so.0
    libpwquality.so.1
    libpwquality.so.1(LIBPWQUALITY_1.0)
    libsecret-1.so.0
    libstdc++.so.6
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)
    libzuluCryptPluginManager.so.1.0.0
    polkit
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    zulucrypt-console(x86-32)
    zulucrypt-libs(x86-32)

zulucrypt-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

zulucrypt-console (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libblkid.so.1
    libblkid.so.1(BLKID_2.15)
    libblkid.so.1(BLKID_2.17)
    libc.so.6
    libcryptsetup.so.4
    libgcrypt.so.20
    libpthread.so.0
    libzuluCrypt-exe.so.1.2.0
    libzuluCrypt.so.1.2.0
    libzuluCryptPluginManager.so.1.0.0
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    zulucrypt-libs(x86-32)

zulucrypt-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libzuluCrypt-exe.so.1.2.0
    libzuluCrypt.so.1.2.0
    libzuluCryptPluginManager.so.1.0.0
    zulucrypt-libs(x86-32)



Provides
--------
zulucrypt-debuginfo:
    zulucrypt-debuginfo
    zulucrypt-debuginfo(x86-32)

zulucrypt-libs:
    libzuluCrypt-exe.so.1.2.0
    libzuluCrypt.so.1.2.0
    libzuluCryptPluginManager.so.1.0.0
    zulucrypt-libs
    zulucrypt-libs(x86-32)

zulucrypt:
    application()
    application(zuluCrypt.desktop)
    application(zuluMount.desktop)
    bundled(md5-openssl)
    bundled(tcplay)
    zulucrypt
    zulucrypt(x86-32)

zulucrypt-doc:
    zulucrypt-doc

zulucrypt-console:
    zulucrypt-console
    zulucrypt-console(x86-32)

zulucrypt-devel:
    pkgconfig(libzuluCrypt)
    zulucrypt-devel
    zulucrypt-devel(x86-32)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/mhogomchungu/zuluCrypt/archive/064e9db3a81f0c3e2030eabc1931914461c7a829/zulucrypt-064e9db3a81f0c3e2030eabc1931914461c7a829.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 74ab892026123876395f7c05260f89d89f73aa2dc7ea5e4b3eeda3b0c7b00584
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 74ab892026123876395f7c05260f89d89f73aa2dc7ea5e4b3eeda3b0c7b00584


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1356739 --plugins C/C++ -m fedora-rawhide-i386
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Comment 20 gil cattaneo 2016-08-05 07:44:39 UTC

Issues:

[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
 See Comment#18

[?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
  See @ line 188 of the spec file, maybe you should also use "-p"

Please, fix also these problem:
zulucrypt.i686: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.fc25 ['5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.fc26', '5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db']
zulucrypt.src:160: W: macro-in-comment %{_includedir}

Comment 21 Raphael Groner 2016-08-05 16:11:36 UTC

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #20)
> Issues:
> 
> [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
>  See Comment#18

zulucrypt:
    application()
    application(zuluCrypt.desktop)
    application(zuluMount.desktop)
    bundled(md5-openssl)
    bundled(tcplay)

I don't understand comment#18, we need 'Provides: bundled(tcplay)'. See open discussion in comment #16.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bundling_and_Duplication_of_system_libraries

> [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
>      files.
>   See @ line 188 of the spec file, maybe you should also use "-p"

Can fix while importing the package.

> Please, fix also these problem:
> zulucrypt.i686: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog
> 5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.fc25 ['5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.fc26',
> '5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db']

Hmpf, maybe uploaded an old SRPM. It's fixed in spec file.

> zulucrypt.src:160: W: macro-in-comment %{_includedir}

This is part of (commented) preparation to unbundle tcplay. Currently not possible to apply, see above. Should I drop the commented lines?

Comment 22 Raphael Groner 2016-08-05 16:15:26 UTC

About rpath: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/641

Comment 23 gil cattaneo 2016-08-05 16:24:44 UTC

(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #21)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #20)
> > Issues:
> > 
> > [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> >  See Comment#18
> 
> zulucrypt:
>     application()
>     application(zuluCrypt.desktop)
>     application(zuluMount.desktop)
>     bundled(md5-openssl)
>     bundled(tcplay)
> 
> I don't understand comment#18, we need 'Provides: bundled(tcplay)'. See open
> discussion in comment #16.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> Guidelines#Bundling_and_Duplication_of_system_libraries

it is set now is useless. should be:

%if %{without bundle_tcplay}
Provides:       bundled(tcplay) = 2.0
%else
#BuildRequires:  tcplay-devel >= 2.0
%endif

otherwise this "if" never will enter the "Provides"

> > [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
> >      files.
> >   See @ line 188 of the spec file, maybe you should also use "-p"
> 
> Can fix while importing the package.
> 
> > Please, fix also these problem:
> > zulucrypt.i686: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog
> > 5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.fc25 ['5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.fc26',
> > '5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db']
> 
> Hmpf, maybe uploaded an old SRPM. It's fixed in spec file.
> 
> > zulucrypt.src:160: W: macro-in-comment %{_includedir}
> 
> This is part of (commented) preparation to unbundle tcplay. Currently not
> possible to apply, see above. Should I drop the commented lines?

as above

Comment 24 gil cattaneo 2016-08-05 16:28:06 UTC

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #23)

> > 
> > > zulucrypt.src:160: W: macro-in-comment %{_includedir}
> > 
> > This is part of (commented) preparation to unbundle tcplay. Currently not
> > possible to apply, see above. Should I drop the commented lines?
> 
> as above
is useless now? then why not remove a useless rpmlint warning ...

Comment 25 gil cattaneo 2016-08-05 16:30:29 UTC

ops my bad ... ignore last comment about bundle tcplay,  my apologize

Comment 26 gil cattaneo 2016-08-05 16:32:47 UTC

approved

Comment 27 Raphael Groner 2016-08-05 16:45:17 UTC

Thanks for the review!

Comment 28 Gwyn Ciesla 2016-08-05 16:59:05 UTC

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/zulucrypt

Comment 29 Fedora Update System 2016-08-05 20:16:28 UTC

lxqt-wallet-3.0.0-1.fc24 zulucrypt-5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-0f2d6af926

Comment 30 Fedora Update System 2016-08-05 20:16:34 UTC

lxqt-wallet-3.0.0-1.fc24 zulucrypt-5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-0f2d6af926

Comment 31 Fedora Update System 2016-08-05 21:56:24 UTC

lxqt-wallet-3.0.0-1.el7 zulucrypt-5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-f08257b92c

Comment 32 Fedora Update System 2016-08-05 21:56:28 UTC

lxqt-wallet-3.0.0-1.el7 zulucrypt-5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-f08257b92c

Comment 33 Fedora Update System 2016-08-09 01:27:42 UTC

lxqt-wallet-3.0.0-1.fc24, zulucrypt-5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-0f2d6af926

Comment 34 Fedora Update System 2016-08-09 02:20:05 UTC

lxqt-wallet-3.0.0-1.el7, zulucrypt-5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-f08257b92c

Comment 35 Fedora Update System 2016-08-15 21:26:40 UTC

lxqt-wallet-3.0.0-1.fc24, zulucrypt-5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 36 Fedora Update System 2016-08-28 13:11:53 UTC

lxqt-wallet-3.0.0-1.el7 zulucrypt-5.0.0-3.20160802git064e9db.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-f08257b92c

Comment 37 Fedora Update System 2016-08-29 22:22:26 UTC

lxqt-wallet-3.0.0-1.el7, zulucrypt-5.0.0-3.20160802git064e9db.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-f08257b92c

Comment 38 Fedora Update System 2016-09-22 18:50:00 UTC

lxqt-wallet-3.0.0-1.el7, zulucrypt-5.0.0-3.20160802git064e9db.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.