This duplicates https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081026 since the original submitter stopped responding to requests.

*** Bug 1081026 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Well, 

On this sslh review, have you ever contacted me before pushing it out?

I don't care if someone wants to take over my original request, but you at least should let me know, especially a "NEED_SPONSOR" guy, you should at least send me a email, even though I may not reply to it.

I've read all emails from every bugzilla as soon as it reaches my inbox. None from you so far.

Anyway, feel free to take it because you are already here.

(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #3)
> Well, 
> 
> On this sslh review, have you ever contacted me before pushing it out?
> 
> I don't care if someone wants to take over my original request, but you at
> least should let me know, especially a "NEED_SPONSOR" guy, you should at
> least send me a email, even though I may not reply to it.
> 
> I've read all emails from every bugzilla as soon as it reaches my inbox.
> None from you so far.
> 
> Anyway, feel free to take it because you are already here.

Apologies if you feel I 'stole' this from you or something but with all due respect the bug you had open:

1) Last update from you was this time last year.
2) The spec and srpm files had not been accessible for some time.
3) I had commented on your bug (which would have sent you mail) September last year.
4) Your reviewer had commented on your bug November last year.
5) Since there was no response and the domain for your site listed is not even a valid domain any more (NXDOMAIN) both your reviewer and I felt that you were no longer interested in this.

I would be happy to co-maintain this if you are interested in taking it up again as that would be a nice way to become a Fedora package maintainer - although this is a small enough package that I believe I can handle Fedora maintenance of it sufficiently if you prefer not to assist.

(In reply to James Hogarth from comment #4)
> Apologies if you feel I 'stole' this from you or something but with all due
> respect the bug you had open:
> 
> 1) Last update from you was this time last year.
> 2) The spec and srpm files had not been accessible for some time.
> 3) I had commented on your bug (which would have sent you mail) September
> last year.
> 4) Your reviewer had commented on your bug November last year.
> 5) Since there was no response and the domain for your site listed is not
> even a valid domain any more (NXDOMAIN) both your reviewer and I felt that
> you were no longer interested in this.

I actually have lots of domains in my hand, but I often change the one I use.

I'm still interested in this, in 1.16, upstream didn't include GPL license text, and then I waited for months to see the import of the text, you could check the github issues page of sslh.

> I would be happy to co-maintain this if you are interested in taking it up
> again as that would be a nice way to become a Fedora package maintainer -
> although this is a small enough package that I believe I can handle Fedora
> maintenance of it sufficiently if you prefer not to assist.

Ok, I believe I can finish this, I hope I can submit it again. Meanwhile I hope you can be a packager as well by submit other packages.

(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #5)
> (In reply to James Hogarth from comment #4)
> > Apologies if you feel I 'stole' this from you or something but with all due
> > respect the bug you had open:
> > 
> > 1) Last update from you was this time last year.
> > 2) The spec and srpm files had not been accessible for some time.
> > 3) I had commented on your bug (which would have sent you mail) September
> > last year.
> > 4) Your reviewer had commented on your bug November last year.
> > 5) Since there was no response and the domain for your site listed is not
> > even a valid domain any more (NXDOMAIN) both your reviewer and I felt that
> > you were no longer interested in this.
> 
> I actually have lots of domains in my hand, but I often change the one I use.
> 
> I'm still interested in this, in 1.16, upstream didn't include GPL license
> text, and then I waited for months to see the import of the text, you could
> check the github issues page of sslh.
> 

I did... That was resolved July last year.

https://github.com/yrutschle/sslh/issues/23

> > I would be happy to co-maintain this if you are interested in taking it up
> > again as that would be a nice way to become a Fedora package maintainer -
> > although this is a small enough package that I believe I can handle Fedora
> > maintenance of it sufficiently if you prefer not to assist.
> 
> Ok, I believe I can finish this, I hope I can submit it again. Meanwhile I
> hope you can be a packager as well by submit other packages.

Well I'd appreciate your help with this but given the effort I've already put in I'm not prepared to step away entirely so if you won't work with me I'd kindly ask you to abide by the packaging guidelines and not to submit a review request for a package with an active bug where the reporter is responding.

I believe I took the appropriate steps after commenting on your bug, your reviewer commenting on your bug and asking advice in #fedora-devel which I then followed.

James, 

two (minor) comments regarding the submitted SPEC and SRPM


1) sslh.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/sslh/ChangeLog

This can be easily fixed.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#file-not-utf8

2) 
cp %{name}-fork %{buildroot}%{_sbindir}/%{name}

(and subsequent lines)

It is important to preserve timestamps when installing files.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps

Use,

cp -p {source} {destination}

Unfortunately, I cannot take this for review since I am not a sponsor. But, good luck.

There is a policy on stalled review requests:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews

(In reply to Piotr Popieluch from comment #8)
> There is a policy on stalled review requests:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews

Thanks for the link Piotr - the reviewer did ask him for an update in November so by that it would appear it should have been closed NOTABUG in December... In which case I would have made my request a little sooner... And this big entry was based on advice from people in #fedora-devel.

(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #7)

Thanks for the input - I'll update the spec to take this info account.

I'm moving house at present so my site is likely to be down a couple of weeks whilst I wait for my new broadband provider to bring connectivity to the new property but I'll file a ticket for temporary fedorahosted space in the meantime so any potential sponsors will be able to check it there.

I'll update with a comment to links there when I've adjusted for the utf8, spelling and timestamp issues.

There is an updated spec and srpm now avaliable taking into account Mukundan's comments.

Spec URL: https://jhogarth.fedorapeople.org/sslh/sslh.spec
SRPM URL: https://jhogarth.fedorapeople.org/sslh/sslh-1.17-1.fc21.src.rpm

Fedora Account System Username: jhogarth

Koji scratch builds have been carried out against this:

F21: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9380211
F22: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9380212
Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9380216

Going through fedora-review against my own package there are three warnings in rpmlint:

  * This is how it is named upstream for the summary on the developer's site.
sslh.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Applicative -> Application, Multip
licative
  * The protocol/application name is tinc (http://www.tinc-vpn.org/)
sslh.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tinc -> tin, tic, inc
  * The main binary, and systemd unit, is for sslh. The binary sslh-select is an optional one someone can elect to use that does not fork and is less tested (https://github.com/yrutschle/sslh).
sslh.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sslh-select

One obvious item that needs to be fixed is that you need to compile with optflags. The simplest way to do this is to override CFLAGS at your make invocation:

make %{?_smp_mflags} USELIBWRAP=1 USELIBCAP=1 CFLAGS="%{optflags}" %{name}

Also, your spacing is odd at the top. Either use tabs or spaces, and try to make sure it all lines up cleanly. RPM doesn't care, but every packager after you will thank you. :)

Fix those two items and I'll finish the review here.

spec file updated fixing the odd tabs hiding inside and adding the CFLAGS to the make invocation

Having trouble running fedora-review locally right now since I moved to F22 beta (dnf-yum/repoquery fun) but have carried out new scratch builds from the srpms:

F21:      http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9437096
F22:      http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9437100
Rawhide:  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9437105


Spec URL: https://jhogarth.fedorapeople.org/sslh/sslh.spec
SRPM URL: https://jhogarth.fedorapeople.org/sslh/sslh-1.17-1.fc21.src.rpm

Fedora Account System Username: jhogarth

Sorry wrong srpm url there...

Spec URL: https://jhogarth.fedorapeople.org/sslh/sslh.spec
SRPM URL: https://jhogarth.fedorapeople.org/sslh/sslh-1.17-1.fc22.src.rpm

Fedora Account System Username: jhogarth

Remember, best practice is to bump release and add a changelog entry on a change in the spec file. I won't require it in this case, but you should do that when you are working with package spec files committed to Fedora git.

= REVIEW =
Good:
- rpmlint checks return:
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: strange-permission sslh-v1.17.tar.gz 0640L
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: no-manual-page-for-binary sslh-select

All safe to ignore.

- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (GPLv2) OK, text in %license, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream (4f3589ed36d8a21581268d53055240eee5e5adf02894a2ca7a6c9022f24b582a)
- package compiles on devel (x86_64)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file

APPROVED.

New Package SCM Request 
======================= 
Package Name: sslh
Short Description: Applicative protocol(SSL/SSH) multiplexer 
Upstream URL: http://www.rutschle.net/tech/sslh.shtml
Owners: jhogarth
Branches: f21 f22

New Package SCM Request 
======================= 
Package Name: sslh
Short Description: Applicative protocol(SSL/SSH) multiplexer 
Upstream URL: http://www.rutschle.net/tech/sslh.shtml
Owners: jhogarth
Branches: f21 f22 el5 el6 epel7

Git done (by process-git-requests).

sslh-1.17-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sslh-1.17-1.fc22

sslh-1.17-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sslh-1.17-1.fc21

sslh-1.17-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sslh-1.17-1.el7

sslh-1.17-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sslh-1.17-1.el6

sslh-1.17-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sslh-1.17-1.el5

sslh-1.17-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.

sslh-1.17-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.

sslh-1.17-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.

sslh-1.17-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.

sslh-1.17-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.

Sslh is now in epel5/6/7 and f21/22/rawhide stable repos and can be installed via yum install sslh