Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877705 Michael Scherer <misc@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |misc@xxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |misc@xxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer <misc@xxxxxxxx> --- Hi, Just a few questions : why is there a -devel package ? while I know that the policy, torsocks need the .so to run : $ torsocks ssh /usr/bin/torsocks: /usr/lib64/torsocks/libtorsocks.so does not exist! Try re-installing torsocks. So we should just merge the 2 rpms. Also, I am not that comfortable with the idea of shipping a modified uwt under this form, but maybe that's planned to merge that with the non modified one ? And a few notes : %{_libdir}/torsocks/ is unowned , should be fixed ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories ) The 2 patch should be commented as being sent upstream ( and sent if that's not already the case ) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment I see there is also a .sig file, could you consider shipping it as well ( even if we do not use it for now ) Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== Issues ===== [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. => moot since subpackage should be dropped [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [!]: Package functions as described. => should be fixed once packages are merged ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in torsocks- devel [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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 %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/877705-torsocks/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [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) [-]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [!]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Uses parallel make. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source1 (uwt) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: torsocks-1.2-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm torsocks-devel-1.2-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm torsocks.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/torsocks torsocks.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/torsocks-1.2/COPYING torsocks.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary uwt torsocks-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib torsocks-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint torsocks torsocks-devel torsocks.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/torsocks torsocks.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/torsocks-1.2/COPYING torsocks.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary uwt torsocks-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib torsocks-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- torsocks (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /bin/sh config(torsocks) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libresolv.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) torsocks-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libtorsocks.so.1()(64bit) torsocks Provides -------- torsocks: config(torsocks) libtorsocks.so.1()(64bit) torsocks torsocks(x86-64) torsocks-devel: torsocks-devel torsocks-devel(x86-64) MD5-sum check ------------- https://torsocks.googlecode.com/files/torsocks-1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bea57d3624d723724fd1e260f0e6b2a354c0da742c023aa994c7692270d111d4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bea57d3624d723724fd1e260f0e6b2a354c0da742c023aa994c7692270d111d4 https://raw.github.com/adrelanos/Whonix/master/whonix_shared/usr/local/bin/uwt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 705433d16bd36feab4cbb6464d56070559a9553689bd2512fb73e42db9ed12e6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 705433d16bd36feab4cbb6464d56070559a9553689bd2512fb73e42db9ed12e6 Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (Unknown) last change: Unknown Buildroot used: fedora-17-x86_64 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 877705 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review