*** Bug 759855 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Ooops, something wrong:

Spec URL: http://misc.cicku.me/fedora/sslh.spec
SRPM URL: http://misc.cicku.me/fedora/sslh-1.16-1.fc21.src.rpm

I will take it. I'll try to do an initial review later today or tomorrow morning.

Please address the issues highlighted below.


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

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



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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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.
[-]: 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)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/mukundan/personal/pkgs/reviews/1081026-sslh/licensecheck.txt

---> This looks fine.


GPL (v2 or later)
-----------------
sslh-v1.16/probe.c
sslh-v1.16/sslh-fork.c
sslh-v1.16/sslh-main.c
sslh-v1.16/sslh-select.c

Unknown or generated
--------------------
sslh-v1.16/common.c
sslh-v1.16/common.h
sslh-v1.16/echosrv.c
sslh-v1.16/genver.sh
sslh-v1.16/probe.h


[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.
[-]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.

---> Some spelling issues.

[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.

sslh.service is provided.

[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: 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 3 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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.

---> I do not see a license file (or text) in the package. Upstream has been informed?

[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: 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.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.

---> Please do a koji scratch build.

[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: sslh-1.16-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          sslh-1.16-1.fc21.src.rpm
sslh.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Applicative -> Application, Multiplicative
sslh.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tinc -> tin, tic, inc

sslh.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US recognised -> recognized, recognize

---> Please fix this.

sslh.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US demultiplexer -> multiplexer, multiplex
sslh.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US proxying -> propping

sslh.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups /usr/sbin/sslh

---> Please address this.

sslh.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib

---> and this.

sslh.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/sslh/ChangeLog
sslh.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Applicative -> Application, Multiplicative
sslh.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tinc -> tin, tic, inc
sslh.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US recognised -> recognized, recognize

---> Please change the spelling.

sslh.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US demultiplexer -> multiplexer, multiplex
sslh.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US proxying -> propping
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 12 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint sslh
sslh.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Applicative -> Application, Multiplicative
sslh.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tinc -> tin, tic, inc
sslh.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US recognised -> recognized, recognize

---> Spelling.

sslh.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US demultiplexer -> multiplexer, multiplex
sslh.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US proxying -> propping
sslh.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups /usr/sbin/sslh
sslh.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
sslh.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/sslh/ChangeLog
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
sslh (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    config(sslh)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcap.so.2()(64bit)
    libconfig.so.9()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    systemd



Provides
--------
sslh:
    config(sslh)
    sslh
    sslh(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
http://www.rutschle.net/tech/sslh-v1.16.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e97b3be9f010bc763a7f11c94e54d8ead33cab3f0c93a52bb9a7f708212e5902
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e97b3be9f010bc763a7f11c94e54d8ead33cab3f0c93a52bb9a7f708212e5902


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1081026
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

Koji built fine.

License file issued upstream.

Spelling errors cleaned.

Once addressed over, I will post new SPEC + SRPM here again.

Thanks.

Hi Christopher are you still interested in this?

The spec/srpm files you provided are currently inaccessible.

Christopher, are you interested in this still?

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1203476 ***