Bug 877705 - Review Request: torsocks - Use SOCKS-friendly applications with Tor
Summary: Review Request: torsocks - Use SOCKS-friendly applications with Tor
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Michael S.
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-11-18 07:10 UTC by Jamie Nguyen
Modified: 2013-01-17 15:11 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-01-17 15:11:56 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
misc: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jamie Nguyen 2012-11-18 07:10:06 UTC
Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/torsocks/torsocks.spec
SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/torsocks/torsocks-1.2-1.fc18.src.rpm
Description: Use SOCKS-friendly applications with Tor
Fedora Account System Username: jamielinux

torsocks has fallen by the wayside for the last year (i.e. patches sent upstream but not applied). Recently, the current torsocks lead developer gave the Tor project permission to take over development [1], so it appears there's still some life left in the project.

[1] https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2012-November/026285.html

Comment 1 Petr Šabata 2012-11-18 20:44:09 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 787561 ***

Comment 2 Jamie Nguyen 2012-11-20 20:50:01 UTC
Eric has closed his review request for torsocks. After discussion with Petr, I have re-opened my own review request :)

Comment 3 Michael S. 2012-11-23 12:31:09 UTC
Hi,

Just a few questions :

why is there a -devel package ? while I know that the policy, torsocks need the .so to run :
$ torsocks ssh
/usr/bin/torsocks: /usr/lib64/torsocks/libtorsocks.so does not exist! Try re-installing torsocks.

So we should just merge the 2 rpms.

Also, I am not that comfortable with the idea of shipping a modified uwt under this form, but maybe that's planned to merge that with the non modified one ?


And a few notes :
%{_libdir}/torsocks/ is unowned , should be fixed ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories )

The 2 patch should be commented as being sent upstream ( and sent if that's not already the case )

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment


I see there is also a .sig file, could you consider shipping it as well ( even if we do not use it for now )


Package Review
==============

Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== Issues =====

[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
=> moot since subpackage should be dropped 

[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.

[!]: Package functions as described.
=> should be fixed once packages are merged

===== MUST items =====

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

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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in torsocks-
     devel
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated".
     2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/877705-torsocks/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
     Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[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)
[-]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[!]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Uses parallel make.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
     Note: Source1 (uwt)
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[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]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: torsocks-1.2-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
          torsocks-devel-1.2-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
torsocks.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/torsocks
torsocks.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/torsocks-1.2/COPYING
torsocks.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary uwt
torsocks-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
torsocks-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint torsocks torsocks-devel
torsocks.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/torsocks
torsocks.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/torsocks-1.2/COPYING
torsocks.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary uwt
torsocks-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
torsocks-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
torsocks (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/bash
    /bin/sh
    config(torsocks)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libdl.so.2()(64bit)
    libresolv.so.2()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

torsocks-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libtorsocks.so.1()(64bit)
    torsocks



Provides
--------
torsocks:
    config(torsocks)
    libtorsocks.so.1()(64bit)
    torsocks
    torsocks(x86-64)

torsocks-devel:
    torsocks-devel
    torsocks-devel(x86-64)



MD5-sum check
-------------
https://torsocks.googlecode.com/files/torsocks-1.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : bea57d3624d723724fd1e260f0e6b2a354c0da742c023aa994c7692270d111d4
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bea57d3624d723724fd1e260f0e6b2a354c0da742c023aa994c7692270d111d4
https://raw.github.com/adrelanos/Whonix/master/whonix_shared/usr/local/bin/uwt :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 705433d16bd36feab4cbb6464d56070559a9553689bd2512fb73e42db9ed12e6
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 705433d16bd36feab4cbb6464d56070559a9553689bd2512fb73e42db9ed12e6


Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (Unknown) last change: Unknown
Buildroot used: fedora-17-x86_64
Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 877705

Comment 4 Jamie Nguyen 2012-11-23 13:26:31 UTC
Thanks very much for the review! :)

Changes made:

- sig file included
- devel merged
- directory owned
- upstream bugs linked
- opened bug report upstream for FSF address
- mark bash completion file as a config file

The Tor project been given permission to take over torsocks, which has been unmaintained for quite some time. uwt is a Tor project fork of usewithtor, so I'm fairly sure that uwt will be shipped with whatever future releases of torsocks they make.

SRPM: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/torsocks/torsocks-1.2-2.fc18.src.rpm
SPEC: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/torsocks/torsocks.spec
DIFF: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/torsocks/torsocks.spec.diff

Comment 5 Michael S. 2012-11-23 13:30:30 UTC
Great, so approved.

Comment 6 Jamie Nguyen 2012-11-23 14:29:31 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: torsocks
Short Description: Use SOCKS-friendly applications with Tor
Owners: jamielinux
Branches: f17 f18 el6
InitialCC:

Comment 7 Jamie Nguyen 2012-11-23 14:37:00 UTC
For some reason I can't change the fedora-cvs flag. It's greyed out for me and not entirely sure why.

Comment 8 Michael S. 2012-11-23 15:36:10 UTC
I have set it for you, but can you see with fedora-infrastructure ?

Comment 9 Jamie Nguyen 2012-11-23 15:43:58 UTC
Thanks Michael.

I've posted to fedora-devel. If I get no progress there then I'll post to infra too.

Comment 10 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-12-03 12:59:13 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2012-12-04 16:20:32 UTC
torsocks-1.2-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/torsocks-1.2-2.fc18

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2012-12-04 17:32:16 UTC
torsocks-1.2-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/torsocks-1.2-2.fc17

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2012-12-04 17:33:10 UTC
torsocks-1.2-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/torsocks-1.2-2.el6

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2012-12-12 00:18:11 UTC
torsocks-1.2-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2012-12-13 05:56:40 UTC
torsocks-1.2-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2012-12-19 18:32:25 UTC
torsocks-1.2-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.

Comment 17 Petr Šabata 2013-01-17 15:11:56 UTC
This hit stable a month ago, closing.


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