Bug 469527 (tcping) - Review Request: tcping - Check of TCP connection to a given IP/Port
Summary: Review Request: tcping - Check of TCP connection to a given IP/Port
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: tcping
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: manuel wolfshant
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2008-11-01 22:11 UTC by Fabian Affolter
Modified: 2014-09-11 15:19 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-01-15 02:57:51 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
manuel.wolfshant: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Fabian Affolter 2008-11-01 22:11:40 UTC
Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/tcping.spec
SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/tcping-1.3.4-1.fc9.src.rpm

Project URL: http://www.linuxco.de/tcping/tcping.html

Description:
tcping does a TCP connect to the given ip/port combination. The user can
specify a timeout in seconds. This is useful in shell scripts running in
firewalled environments. Often SYNs are just being dropped by firewalls,
thus connection establishment will be retried several times (for minutes)
until a TCP timeout is reached. With tcping it is possible to check first
if the desired port is reachable and then start connection establishment.

Koji scratch builds:
F9:  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=914530
F10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=914535

rpmlint output:
[fab@laptop024 i386]$ rpmlint -i tc*
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

[fab@laptop024 SRPMS]$ rpmlint -i tc*
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2008-11-07 23:21:15 UTC
This code seems to be confused about how it is licensed.  Note that the LICENSE file contains the LGPL (v2) but the code itself says:
 * This code may be freely redistributed under the terms of the
 * GNU General Public License.
and this agrees with the README:
  This software may be freely distributed under the terms of
  the GNU General Public License (GPL).

No version is specified anywhere, so GPL+ would seem to apply.  Can you clarify with upstream?

I'm inclined to say it's best to simply pretend that LICENSE file is not there at all.  The guidelines say that the text of the license(s) must be included if its there at all, but this isn't the text of the code's license, it's some other license.

This also suffers from the compiler flags problem; easily fixed by changing the make line to:
  make CCFLAGS="%{optflags}" %{?_smp_mflags}

Comment 2 Fabian Affolter 2008-11-10 11:05:12 UTC
2008-11-10 Message sent to upstream about the licensing

Comment 3 Fabian Affolter 2008-11-26 09:57:43 UTC
Still no answer from upstream

Comment 4 Fabian Affolter 2008-12-04 08:34:55 UTC
Sent a new message to upstream

Comment 5 Fabian Affolter 2008-12-06 13:15:12 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> This code seems to be confused about how it is licensed.  Note that the LICENSE
> file contains the LGPL (v2) but the code itself says:
>  * This code may be freely redistributed under the terms of the
>  * GNU General Public License.
> and this agrees with the README:
>   This software may be freely distributed under the terms of
>   the GNU General Public License (GPL).
> 
> No version is specified anywhere, so GPL+ would seem to apply.  Can you clarify
> with upstream?

For the moment I changed the license to GPL+ while I'm waiting for an answer from upstream.

> This also suffers from the compiler flags problem; easily fixed by changing the
> make line to:
>   make CCFLAGS="%{optflags}" %{?_smp_mflags}

fixed

Here are the new files.

Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/tcping.spec
SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/tcping-1.3.4-2.fc9.src.rpm

Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=983765

Comment 6 Fabian Affolter 2008-12-14 13:11:02 UTC
The license is LGPLv3+. Upstream updated the license.

Here are the new files.

Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/tcping.spec
SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/tcping-1.3.4-3.fc9.src.rpm

Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=997919

Comment 7 manuel wolfshant 2008-12-15 05:48:23 UTC
before I start a review, would you mind updating to the latest release (1.3.5) ?

Comment 9 manuel wolfshant 2008-12-16 13:05:22 UTC
Package Review
==============

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture.
     Tested on: devel/x86_64
 [x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:empty
 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
 [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.
     License type per spec: LGPLv3+
 [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] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
     SHA1SUM of package: ecc5fe7fb2f8e86a1fc2d09651310b26fa922c7b tcping-1.3.5.tar.gz
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application.
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 [x] Final provides and requires are sane.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Latest version is packaged.
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on: devel/x86_64
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
     Tested on: devel/x86_64
 [x] Package functions as described.
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
 [-] File based requires are sane.
 [x] %check is present and the test passes.


================
*** APPROVED ***
================

Comment 10 Fabian Affolter 2008-12-16 21:51:50 UTC
Thanks Manuel for the review.

Comment 11 Fabian Affolter 2008-12-16 23:29:34 UTC
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: tcping
Short Description: Check of TCP connection to a given IP/Port
Owners: fab
Branches: F-9 F-10

Comment 12 Kevin Fenzi 2008-12-17 22:13:46 UTC
cvs done.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2008-12-19 12:37:01 UTC
tcping-1.3.5-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tcping-1.3.5-1.fc9

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2008-12-21 08:38:50 UTC
tcping-1.3.5-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update tcping'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-11465

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2009-01-08 21:30:16 UTC
tcping-1.3.5-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tcping-1.3.5-1.fc10

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2009-01-15 02:55:33 UTC
tcping-1.3.5-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update tcping'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-0416

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2009-01-15 02:57:49 UTC
tcping-1.3.5-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 18 Fedora Update System 2009-01-24 02:42:36 UTC
tcping-1.3.5-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 19 Fabian Affolter 2014-09-11 14:15:27 UTC
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: tcping
New Branches: el6 epel7
Owners: fab 
InitialCC:

Comment 20 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-09-11 15:19:43 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.