Spec URL: http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora11/iodine/iodine.spec SRPM URL: http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora11/iodine/iodine-0.5.2-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: iodine lets you tunnel IPv4 data through a DNS server. This can be usable in different situations where internet access is firewalled, but DNS queries are allowed. It runs on Linux, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and Windows and needs a TUN/TAP device. The bandwidth is asymmetrical with limited upstream and up to 1 Mbit/s downstream. P.S. For spec indentation used tab with 5 spaces width. Plese, do not start review if it is the problem for you.
I want to co-maintain this package. Changes: - Split iodine to server, client and doc packages - Add initscripts support - Add logrotate support - Add optflags to CFLAGS - Add zlib-devel to BuildRequires - Remove dos2unix from BuildRequires - Remove useless iodine-0.5.2-prefix.patch - Don't package README-win32.txt Spec URL: http://repo.lystor.org.ua/fedora/12/SPECS/iodine.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.lystor.org.ua/fedora/12/SRPMS/iodine-0.5.2-2.fc12.src.rpm Builds successfully in mock on F-11, F-12, F-13 with i386/x86_64 architectures.
(In reply to comment #1) > I want to co-maintain this package. You are welcome! > Changes: > - Split iodine to server, client and doc packages I do not see any worth in it. For what? This is small package which does not required excessive dependencies. > - Add initscripts support > - Add logrotate support Thank you, I import it with small enhancements. > - Add optflags to CFLAGS make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="-c -pedantic %{optflags} -DLINUX" You add compile flags and even do not comment for what. It is not permitted in Fedora: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags > - Add zlib-devel to BuildRequires Thanks. > - Remove dos2unix from BuildRequires > - Don't package README-win32.txt It have not many sense, but ok, I also do that. > - Remove useless iodine-0.5.2-prefix.patch There I disagree. Patch is useful and reported to upstream. Installation all files manual across autotools functionality can be accomplished in this easy package, but in fact is bad idea. http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora11/iodine/iodine.spec http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora11/iodine/iodine-0.5.2-2.fc11.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2004630
(In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > - Add optflags to CFLAGS > make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="-c -pedantic %{optflags} -DLINUX" > You add compile flags and even do not comment for what. It is not permitted in > Fedora: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags At least %{optflags} should be used, as mentioned in the packaging guidelines URL you just cited. This includes things like -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 and -fstack-protector, which provide additional sanity checking of source code and protection from some buffer overflow issues.
> make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="-c -pedantic %{optflags} -DLINUX" > You add compile flags and even do not comment for what. It is not permitted in > Fedora: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags 1. "-c -pedantic -DLINUX" - upstream CFLAGS from src/Makefile 2. %{optflags} is required for Fedora >> - Don't package README-win32.txt > It have not many sense, but ok, I also do that. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation : "Irrelevant documentation include build instructions, the omnipresent INSTALL file containing generic build instructions, for example, and documentation for non-Linux systems, e.g. README.MSDOS"
(In reply to comment #4) > 1. "-c -pedantic -DLINUX" - upstream CFLAGS from src/Makefile Yes! I also speak about it - we do not want use foreign flags untill it is really needed. > 2. %{optflags} is required for Fedora Ok, I provide it now. http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora11/iodine/iodine-0.5.2-3.fc11.src.rpm
So what's happening with this review, do you need help? I will look on it then.
[Y] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.[1] [root@fecusia SPECS]# rpmlint iodine.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [Y] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [Y] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [Y] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [Y] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. License is states as "ISC" but the proper license is "MIT" [N] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. License is states as "ISC" but the proper license is "MIT" Please fix this. [Y] 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 must be included in %doc. [Y] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [Y] Packages can contain additional translated summary/description for supported Non-English languages, if available. (Russian) [Y] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [Y] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. [root@fecusia SOURCES]# md5sum iodine-0.5.2.tar.gz 6952343cc4614857f83dbb81247871e7 iodine-0.5.2.tar.gz But 0.6.0-rc1 is already released! Perhaps you want to package this instead? I don't mind. [Y] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. (rpmbuild -ba) [Y] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. No chance to test this until you submit it for building, but this package builds nicely on a multitude of Debian archs. [Y] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [NA] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9] [NA] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [Y] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [NA] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [NA] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [Y] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [Y] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [Y] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [Y] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [NA] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). This is too little documentation to have its own subpackage. [Y] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [NA] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [NA] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [NA] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [NA] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [NA] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [NA] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [NA] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [Y] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [Y] 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. Ask them when convenient. [Y] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Have you tested this? [Y] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [Y] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [Y] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [NA] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [NA] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [NA] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [Y] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. APPROVED
Slipped, APPROVED on the condition that the license field is fixed.
I add few comments about spec file from a src.rpm mentioned in comment #5: - it's better to have two binary packages (why should I have client installed on server side?) - indentation in the spec is a bit inconsistency: there are few parameters which have not enough TABs - there is new version 0.6.0-rc1 - line '#% configure' looks redundant - I prefer to see explicit names in the %files section for files under %{_sbindir}, because the binaries in such package might be changed - for me the '-c' option in the CFLAGS is odd, I guess the patch of Makefile could fix the oddness P.S. What is the actual status of this package?
Ohh, very sorry, i missed this review. Linus, why license should be MIT? Offsite http://code.kryo.se/iodine/ say it released under ISC. (In reply to comment #9) > I add few comments about spec file from a src.rpm mentioned in comment #5: > - it's better to have two binary packages (why should I have client installed > on server side?) Why you shouldn't have it? > - indentation in the spec is a bit inconsistency: there are few parameters > which have not enough TABs See 0 post and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PavelAlexeev/tabsize > - there is new version 0.6.0-rc1 Yes. And it is not stable. Does it fix some critical bugs? > - line '#% configure' looks redundant Indeed. It is not important, meantime deleted. > - I prefer to see explicit names in the %files section for files under > %{_sbindir}, because the binaries in such package might be changed There already no globbing, only explicit names: %{_sbindir}/%{name} %{_sbindir}/%{name}d > - for me the '-c' option in the CFLAGS is odd, I guess the patch of Makefile > could fix the oddness I'm do not sure this is bug to report it upstream. Can you say something about it? > P.S. What is the actual status of this package? Again sorry for miss review.
(In reply to comment #10) > > - it's better to have two binary packages (why should I have client installed > > on server side?) > Why you shouldn't have it? I won't start a holy war here, but look at openssh for example. > > - indentation in the spec is a bit inconsistency: there are few parameters > > which have not enough TABs > See 0 post and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PavelAlexeev/tabsize Again, keep an eye on other packages in Fedora. There is a common sense: if I don't know any standard about something, I look at work which already done. It's so called standard 'de facto'. (Actually on your page the 'cat' usage in sample is useless) > > - there is new version 0.6.0-rc1 > Yes. And it is not stable. Does it fix some critical bugs? It brings speed feature. However, we need a synchronization with other distributions at the same time. So, the proposal is to check them (current unstable versions!) and do the same package in the Fedora. > > - for me the '-c' option in the CFLAGS is odd, I guess the patch of Makefile > > could fix the oddness > I'm do not sure this is bug to report it upstream. Can you say something about > it? Seems as a bug. P.S. ping!
(In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #10) > > > - it's better to have two binary packages (why should I have client installed > > > on server side?) > > Why you shouldn't have it? > I won't start a holy war here, but look at openssh for example. And what? Openssh is complex and big software. F.e. OpenVPN, remmina (for VNC), tinc and vtun have not any subpackages at all. > > > > - indentation in the spec is a bit inconsistency: there are few parameters > > > which have not enough TABs > > See 0 post and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PavelAlexeev/tabsize > Again, keep an eye on other packages in Fedora. There is a common sense: if I > don't know any standard about something, I look at work which already done. > It's so called standard 'de facto'. If you read carefully there no any Standard in Fedora. Some projects have it, but freedom Fedora does not willing. > (Actually on your page the 'cat' usage in sample is useless) Why?? > > > - there is new version 0.6.0-rc1 > > Yes. And it is not stable. Does it fix some critical bugs? > It brings speed feature. However, we need a synchronization with other > distributions at the same time. So, the proposal is to check them (current > unstable versions!) and do the same package in the Fedora. Primary we need stability - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Package_update_guidelines . But according to changelog I agree it have worth to update. > > > > - for me the '-c' option in the CFLAGS is odd, I guess the patch of Makefile > > > could fix the oddness > > I'm do not sure this is bug to report it upstream. Can you say something about > > it? > Seems as a bug. It is not required anymore in new version. > > P.S. ping! http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora13/iodine/iodine-0.6.0-0.rc1.4.fc13.src.rpm http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora13/iodine/iodine.spec P.S. pong!
As Linus did not answer about license, I request branch: New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: iodine Short Description: Solution to tunnel IPv4 data through a DNS server Owners: hubbitus,lystor Branches: F-12 F-13 EL-5 EL-6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
(In reply to comment #12) > > Again, keep an eye on other packages in Fedora. There is a common sense: if I > > don't know any standard about something, I look at work which already done. > > It's so called standard 'de facto'. > If you read carefully there no any Standard in Fedora. Some projects have it, > but freedom Fedora does not willing. Might be, but 'standard de facto' means usual practice. > > (Actually on your page the 'cat' usage in sample is useless) > Why?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_%28Unix%29#Useless_use_of_cat > Primary we need stability - Stability _and_ compatibility (as much as possible of course) with other Linux distributions > http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora13/iodine/iodine.spec I have read the Russian translations inside spec. The language is used there is too slangy and stylistically broken a bit. I rather prefer to don't see such translations at all than keep user confused.
iodine-0.6.0-0.rc1.4.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/iodine-0.6.0-0.rc1.4.el5
iodine-0.6.0-0.rc1.4.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/iodine-0.6.0-0.rc1.4.fc12
iodine-0.6.0-0.rc1.4.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/iodine-0.6.0-0.rc1.4.fc13
(In reply to comment #15) > Might be, but 'standard de facto' means usual practice. There no also de facto standard - one prefer use tabs 4 space with, another spaces, I prefer tabs with 5 spaces width... > > > (Actually on your page the 'cat' usage in sample is useless) > > Why?? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_%28Unix%29#Useless_use_of_cat May be. But in nowadays cat usage is "standard de facto" ;) In any case it interesting, thanks. > > Primary we need stability - > Stability _and_ compatibility (as much as possible of course) with other Linux > distributions I had ask but you are did not answer. Was this version incompatible and interoperability broken? > > http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora13/iodine/iodine.spec > I have read the Russian translations inside spec. The language is used there is > too slangy and stylistically broken a bit. I rather prefer to don't see such > translations at all than keep user confused. What sentence seamed broken for you? I ready fix errors if it reasonable.
iodine-0.6.0-0.rc1.4.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 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 iodine'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/iodine-0.6.0-0.rc1.4.fc12
iodine-0.6.0-0.rc1.4.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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 iodine'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/iodine-0.6.0-0.rc1.4.el5
iodine-0.6.0-0.rc1.4.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
iodine-0.6.0-0.rc1.4.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
iodine-0.6.0-0.rc1.4.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Please add F14 branch. Package SCM change Request ======================= Package Name: Short Description: Owners: hubbitus Branches: F-14 InitialCC:
Please submit a valid change request; thanks. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests#Package_Change_Requests_for_existing_packages
Sorry. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: iodine New Branches: f14 Owners: hubbitus,lystor InitialCC:
iodine-0.6.0-0.rc1.6.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/iodine-0.6.0-0.rc1.6.fc14
iodine-0.6.0-0.rc1.6.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 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 iodine'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/iodine-0.6.0-0.rc1.6.fc14
iodine-0.6.0-0.rc1.6.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.