https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2265862 Bug ID: 2265862 Summary: Review Request: spiped - Create secure pipes between socket addresses Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Reporter: roam@xxxxxxxxxxx QA Contact: extras-qa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CC: package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/ppentchev/fedora-packages/-/blob/main/spiped/src/spiped.spec?ref_type=heads SRPM URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/roam/spiped/build/7057817/ Description: spiped (pronounced "ess-pipe-dee") is a utility for creating symmetrically encrypted and authenticated pipes between socket addresses, so that one may connect to one address (e.g., a UNIX socket on localhost) and transparently have a connection established to another address (e.g., a UNIX socket on a different system). This is similar to 'ssh -L' functionality, but does not use SSH and requires a pre-shared symmetric key. spipe (pronounced "ess-pipe") is a utility which acts as an spiped protocol client (i.e., connects to an spiped daemon), taking input from the standard input and writing data read back to the standard output. Fedora Account System Username: roam This is my first Fedora package, so I will need a sponsor. Hence, the spec currently lives in my GitLab repository, and the SRPM file is available in COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/roam/spiped/build/7057817/ A couple of notes on some fedora-review items: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: This project does not use gnulib. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: The rpmlint tool reports several false positives, all misspellings. Should I create an spiped.rpmlint file to override them? [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Note: Upstream is aware of the install.patch change (it is also present in the Debian package of spiped that I maintain), and their response (via private mail) was "unfortunatly install(1) isn't a POSIX command, and I couldn't find a way to rewrite our Makefile so that it would be easier to patch this in". [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: Upstream only provides SHA256 hashes, not OpenPGP signatures. Thanks in advance for any comments and suggestions! Since this is my first attempt to submit a Fedora package for review, please feel free to point out anything I have missed (I have no doubt that there will be something, possibly many somethings). G'luck, Peter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2265862 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202265862%23c0 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
