[Bug 239901] Review Request: corkscrew - Tool for tunneling SSH through HTTP proxies.

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: corkscrew - Tool for tunneling SSH through HTTP proxies.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239901


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tibbs at math.uh.edu




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-05-15 17:59 EST -------
The package builds fine; rpmlint says:
  W: corkscrew summary-ended-with-dot Tool for tunneling SSH through HTTP proxies.
Should be a trivial fix.

Note that Source0: should be a URL, so that spectool, for example, can download
the source.

You must include the license text (COPYING) and really should include the rest
of the included documentation (AUTHORS, ChangeLog, TODO) as %doc.  INSTALL and
NEWS are generic and content-free so there's no need to include them.

Have you investigated how other distros package this program?  Debian includes a
manpage and a couple of bugfix patches.  When packaging software like this that
hasn't been touched in years, it's always worth looking at other distros to see
how they're handling bugfixes and such.

Finally, are you sponsored?  A quick search didn't turn you up as the owner of
any other packages.  If you don't have a sponsor, you'll need to add
FE-NEEDSPONSOR to the "Bug 239901 blocks" field and point out reviews that
you've done or other packages you've submitted so that the sponsors will have
enough information to decide whether they would like to sponsor you.

Here's a review:
* source files match upstream:
   0d0fcbb41cba4a81c4ab494459472086f377f9edb78a2e2238ed19b58956b0be  
   corkscrew-2.0.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
X license text included in source but not in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint has a valid complaint
* final provides and requires are sane.
O %check is not present; no test suite upstream.  Reviewer has no means to test 
  this software.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.