[Bug 2121870] New: Review Request: tsocks - Library for catching network connections, redirecting them on a SOCKS server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121870
Bug ID: 2121870 Summary: Review Request: tsocks - Library for catching network connections, redirecting them on a SOCKS server Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dcavalca@fb.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/tsocks/tsocks.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/tsocks/tsocks-1.8beta5-1.fc38.src.r...
Description: tsocks is designed for use in machines which are firewalled from the Internet. It avoids the need to recompile applications like lynx or telnet so they can use SOCKS to reach the Internet. It behaves much like the SOCKSified TCP/IP stacks seen on other platforms.
tsocks is a library to allow transparent SOCKS proxying. It wraps the normal connect() function. When a connection is attempted, it consults the configuration file (which is defined at configure time but defaults to /etc/tsocks.conf) and determines if the IP address specified is local. If it is not, the library redirects the connection to a SOCKS server specified in the configuration file. It then negotiates that connection with the SOCKS server and passes the connection back to the calling program.
Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121870
--- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=91297445
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121870
Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #2 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- This package will need to be unretired after review: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tsocks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121870
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org
--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tsocks See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/tsocks/2121870-tsocks/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [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. [?]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 5 files. [?]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Unversioned so-files -------------------- tsocks: /usr/lib64/libtsocks.so
Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/tsocks/tsocks-1.8beta5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 849d7ef5af80d03e76cc05ed9fb8fa2bcc2b724b51ebfd1b6be11c7863f5b347 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 849d7ef5af80d03e76cc05ed9fb8fa2bcc2b724b51ebfd1b6be11c7863f5b347
Requires -------- tsocks (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libtsocks.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
tsocks-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
tsocks-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
$ rpmlint tsocks-1.8beta5-1.fc38.src.rpm ======================================== rpmlint session starts ======================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
tsocks.src: E: invalid-version 1.8beta5 ========= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 1.2 s =========
$ rpmlint tsocks-1.8beta5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm ======================================== rpmlint session starts ======================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
tsocks.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/inspectsocks tsocks.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/validateconf tsocks.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary inspectsocks tsocks.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary validateconf tsocks.x86_64: E: invalid-version 1.8beta5 tsocks.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/tsocks/COPYING tsocks.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libtsocks.so tsocks.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/inspectsocks tsocks.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/validateconf tsocks.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/libtsocks.so.1.8 ========= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 8 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 7.1 s =========
$ rpmlint tsocks-debuginfo-1.8beta5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm ======================================== rpmlint session starts ======================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
tsocks-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/tsocks-1.8beta5-1.fc38.x86_64 tsocks-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/inspectsocks-1.8beta5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug tsocks-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/validateconf-1.8beta5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug tsocks-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libtsocks.so.1.8-1.8beta5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug tsocks-debuginfo.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/tsocks-1.8beta5-1.fc38.x86_64 tsocks-debuginfo.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/inspectsocks-1.8beta5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug tsocks-debuginfo.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/validateconf-1.8beta5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug tsocks-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libtsocks.so.1.8-1.8beta5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug tsocks-debuginfo.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/inspectsocks-1.8beta5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug tsocks-debuginfo.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/validateconf-1.8beta5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug tsocks-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation tsocks-debuginfo.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/tsocks-1.8beta5-1.fc38.x86_64 tsocks-debuginfo.x86_64: E: invalid-version 1.8beta5 tsocks-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz tsocks-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz tsocks-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/40/f7b2c9e039c2ce60fcf1a8cb0daa505bf9d6e9 ../../../.build-id/40/f7b2c9e039c2ce60fcf1a8cb0daa505bf9d6e9 tsocks-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/50/115a8307e565f945018f4a8e17f03e1d1dec1f ../../../.build-id/50/115a8307e565f945018f4a8e17f03e1d1dec1f tsocks-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/b3/5c0b562abe0d76c9a259900b21ec6a0561f664 ../../../.build-id/b3/5c0b562abe0d76c9a259900b21ec6a0561f664 tsocks-debuginfo.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/inspectsocks-1.8beta5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug tsocks-debuginfo.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/validateconf-1.8beta5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug tsocks-debuginfo.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libtsocks.so.1.8-1.8beta5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug ======== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 15 warnings, 6 badness; has taken 0.9 s =========
Comments: a) Should .h and .so files be in a devel package? b) Is there an alternative package that is actively maintained? This code is quite old though it seems well written and quite portable. c) Configure script is available under Free Software License and is distributed with the source tarball, but is not packaged.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121870
--- Comment #4 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name ---
a) Should .h and .so files be in a devel package?
I don't think so, as this isn't a library meant to be linked against, the .so is the actual program and is injected via LD_PRELOAD / ld.so path to perform the proxying
b) Is there an alternative package that is actively maintained? This code is quite old though it seems well written and quite portable.
I haven't seen one, but I'd be open to alternatives. I'm mostly packaging this because we still use it at work
c) Configure script is available under Free Software License and is distributed with the source tarball, but is not packaged.
Do you mean the autotools script? those are only needed during build, not on the target system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121870
--- Comment #5 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Further comments: a) Can you add -fpie to compile flags and -pie to linker flags
$ rpmlint -e position-independent-executable-suggested position-independent-executable-suggested: This executable should be position independent (all binaries should). Check that it is built with -fPIE/-fpie in compiler flags and -pie in linker flags.
b) Perhaps use a different version number:
$ rpmlint -e invalid-version invalid-version: The version string must not contain the pre, alpha, beta or rc suffixes because when the final version will be out, you will have to use an Epoch tag to make the package upgradable. Instead put it in the release tag, prefixed with something you have control over.
c) Maybe add a patch to use getaddrinfo? Initial attempt at: https://gitlab.com/tsocks/tsocks
$ rpmlint -e binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname: The binary calls gethostbyname. Please port the code to use getaddrinfo.
d) There are further warnings and errors for the debuginfo package, but maybe the ones in the main package should be fixed first.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121870
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) | Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed| |2024-01-09 03:30:49
--- Comment #7 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- This fails to build on f40, and given the lack of support for IPv6 I'm going to drop it for now.
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name has canceled Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org's request for Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org's needinfo: Bug 2121870: Review Request: tsocks - Library for catching network connections, redirecting them on a SOCKS server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121870
--- Comment #7 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- This fails to build on f40, and given the lack of support for IPv6 I'm going to drop it for now.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com