[Bug 2265862] Review Request: spiped - Create secure pipes between socket addresses

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2265862

Peter Pentchev <roam@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Comment|0                           |updated



--- Comment #0 has been edited ---

Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/roam/spiped/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07057817-spiped/spiped.spec
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/roam/spiped/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07057817-spiped/spiped-1.6.2-1.fc41.src.rpm
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
--
_______________________________________________
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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux