[Bug 1497356] Review Request: obfs4 - The obfourscator, a pluggable transport for Tor

[bugzilla]

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

[bugzilla]

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

[bugzilla]

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

[bugzilla]

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

[bugzilla]

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

[bugzilla]

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

[bugzilla]

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 

[Bug 1497356] Review Request: obfs4 - The obfourscator, a pluggable transport for Tor

[bugzilla]

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

[bugzilla]

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