[Bug 787561] Review Request: torsocks - A transparent socks proxy for use with tor

Mon Feb 6 16:32:11 UTC 2012

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787561

--- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata <psabata at redhat.com> 2012-02-06 11:32:10 EST ---
Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated

==== C/C++ ====
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[!]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[!]: MUST Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.

==== Generic ====
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
     least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[!]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: defattr(....) present in %files devel section. This is OK if
     packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[!]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[!]: MUST 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.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[!]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[!]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[!]: MUST No %config files under /usr.
[!]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[!]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[!]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[!]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[?]: MUST Package installs properly.
[!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
/home/contyk/src/review/787561/torsocks-1.2.tar.gz :
  MD5SUM this package     : 9bdc8786951e7eec6915433f324f22a4
  MD5SUM upstream package : 9bdc8786951e7eec6915433f324f22a4

[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
     /usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[-]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
     upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[-]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.

---
FIX: Don't package static libraries and libtool archives.  Put them into a
static subpackage if you really have a reason to ship those.  (I guess you'll
just correct line 34 to remove the rest :) )
TODO: BuildRoot tag, buildroot cleaning in %install and the $clean section
aren't needed anymore.  Remove them unless you plan to use this package in
EPELs.
TODO: The same applies to %defattr in your $files sections.
FIX: Remove the extra '- ' before your name in the %changelog.
FIX: The devel subpackage contains the same files as the base package.  RPM
possible handles that but it would be better if you shipped them just once.
FIX: The %doc macro handles files in the current build directory;  don't list
bogus absolute paths.  Consider the following simple replacement:
%doc ChangeLog COPYING README doc/socks
And possibly this for the devel subpackage:
%doc doc/notes/DEBUG
FIX: Include the license in the %doc (see above)
FIX: Correct the License tag; it should be GPLv2+; see the source files.
FIX: Don't use hardcoded paths in %files.  Change /etc to %{_sysconfdir}
FIX: The devel subpackage should have an arch-specific base package dependency,
e.g. Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
FIX: Drop the pkgconfig dependency from the devel subpackage.  There are no
pkgconfig files.
TIP: Use the %{name} macro in URL and Source.

Not approving yet.

Generated by fedora-review 0.1.1
External plugins:

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.