[Bug 1497356] Review Request: obfs4 - The obfourscator, a pluggable transport for Tor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1497356 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- persepolis-3.0.1-2.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-2e35b639c9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1497356] Review Request: obfs4 - The obfourscator, a pluggable transport for Tor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1497356 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- persepolis-3.0.1-2.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-50c7ab5902 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1497356] Review Request: obfs4 - The obfourscator, a pluggable transport for Tor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1497356 Rastus Vernon changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1331928 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331928 [Bug 1331928] Pluggable transports are not packaged -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1497356] Review Request: obfs4 - The obfourscator, a pluggable transport for Tor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1497356 Hedayat Vatankhah changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2017-09-30 17:53:40 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1497356] Review Request: obfs4 - The obfourscator, a pluggable transport for Tor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1497356 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/obfs4. You may commit to the branch "f27" in about 10 minutes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1497356] Review Request: obfs4 - The obfourscator, a pluggable transport for Tor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1497356 --- Comment #4 from Hedayat Vatankhah --- Really thank you for your review. Hmm.. Just a question: while this package is clearly called 'obfs4', it provides obfs4proxy binary and also it is named as such in some other places (e.g. AFAIK in Debian). Do you think that adding a 'Provides: obfs4proxy' is good/acceptable? Thanks again -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1497356] Review Request: obfs4 - The obfourscator, a pluggable transport for Tor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1497356 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Ok, package accepted. Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed = MUST items = 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: "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/obfs4/review-obfs4/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [-]: 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 2 files. [x]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in obfs4-debuginfo , obfs4-debugsource [?]: Package functions as described. [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. [-]: %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 unless ju
[Bug 1497356] Review Request: obfs4 - The obfourscator, a pluggable transport for Tor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1497356 --- Comment #2 from Hedayat Vatankhah --- Well, actually not AFAIK. While -devel & unit-test-devel subpackage expressions are still in the spec, I've set with_devel to 0, so they are not built currently (and if I want to enable it someday, I should fix unit-test-devel package name too.). I was unsure if I should remove them altogether, but for now I decided to keep them but disable them. If you think it it better to cleanup the .spec and remove them completely, I'll do. Currently, only obfs4 & its debuginfo package(s) are generated. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1497356] Review Request: obfs4 - The obfourscator, a pluggable transport for Tor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1497356 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Just so I'm getting this right, this is both intended to be used as a binary AND a development library? If not, there's no need to package -devel and -unit-test-devel. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org