Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
Bug ID: 894338 Summary: Review Request: libdistorm - A lightweight, easy-to-use and fast disassembler/decomposer library for x86/AMD64 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: rcvalle@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~rdecarva/libdistorm/libdistorm.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~rdecarva/libdistorm/libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: A lightweight, easy-to-use and fast disassembler/decomposer library for x86/AMD64. A decomposer means that you get a binary structure that describes an instruction rather than textual representation.
Fedora Account System Username: rcvalle
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
Eric "Sparks" Christensne sparks@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sparks@redhat.com Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #1 from Eric "Sparks" Christensne sparks@redhat.com --- A few items need to be taken care of here. I'll finish the review when the failures have been addressed.
Package Review ==============
Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= [!]: Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [!]: Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [ ]: 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/894338-libdistorm/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [ ]: Package is not relocatable. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [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) [ ]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (distorm3.zip) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [ ]: 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. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: libdistorm-3.3-1.fc16.src.rpm libdistorm-debuginfo-3.3-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm libdistorm-3.3-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm libdistorm-devel-3.3-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm libdistorm.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) diStorm -> distort, storm libdistorm.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C diStorm libdistorm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US disassembler -> disassemble, disassembles, disassembled libdistorm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decomposer -> recomposed, decompose, decomposes libdistorm.src: E: no-changelogname-tag libdistorm-debuginfo.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag libdistorm-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources libdistorm.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) diStorm -> distort, storm libdistorm.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C diStorm libdistorm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US disassembler -> disassemble, disassembles, disassembled libdistorm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decomposer -> recomposed, decompose, decomposes libdistorm.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag libdistorm.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libdistorm3.so libdistorm.x86_64: W: no-documentation libdistorm.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libdistorm3.so 0775L libdistorm-devel.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag libdistorm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 11 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint libdistorm-debuginfo libdistorm-devel libdistorm libdistorm-debuginfo.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US libdistorm-debuginfo.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag libdistorm-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources libdistorm-devel.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag libdistorm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libdistorm.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C diStorm libdistorm.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag libdistorm.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libdistorm3.so libdistorm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libdistorm3.so linux-vdso.so.1 libdistorm.x86_64: W: no-documentation libdistorm.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libdistorm3.so 0775L 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- libdistorm-debuginfo-3.3-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libdistorm-3.3-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
libdistorm-devel-3.3-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libdistorm = 3.3-1.fc16
Provides -------- libdistorm-debuginfo-3.3-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm:
libdistorm-debuginfo = 3.3-1.fc16 libdistorm-debuginfo(x86-64) = 3.3-1.fc16
libdistorm-3.3-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm:
libdistorm = 3.3-1.fc16 libdistorm(x86-64) = 3.3-1.fc16 libdistorm3.so()(64bit)
libdistorm-devel-3.3-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm:
libdistorm-devel = 3.3-1.fc16 libdistorm-devel(x86-64) = 3.3-1.fc16
Unversioned so-files -------------------- libdistorm-3.3-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm: /usr/lib64/libdistorm3.so
MD5-sum check ------------- http://distorm.googlecode.com/files/distorm3.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d311d232e108def8acac0d4f6514e7bc070e37d7aa123ab9a9a05b9322321582 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d311d232e108def8acac0d4f6514e7bc070e37d7aa123ab9a9a05b9322321582
Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-16-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 894338
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt mschwendt@gmail.com ---
[!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
Did you notice that the main package would be empty then?
Please always verify what fedora-review reports.
The src.rpm needs a lot of work.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #3 from Ramon de C Valle rcvalle@redhat.com --- Actually not, because my files section was (*.so, and not *.so.*):
%files %doc %{_libdir}/*.so
(In reply to comment #2)
[!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
Did you notice that the main package would be empty then?
Please always verify what fedora-review reports.
The src.rpm needs a lot of work.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt mschwendt@gmail.com --- $ rpmls -p libdistorm-devel-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/distorm.h -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/mnemonics.h
$ rpmls -p libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib64/libdistorm3.so
qed
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #5 from Ramon de C Valle rcvalle@redhat.com --- I don't see any empty packages in your demo.
(In reply to comment #4)
$ rpmls -p libdistorm-devel-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/distorm.h -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/mnemonics.h
$ rpmls -p libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib64/libdistorm3.so
qed
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
Michael Schwendt mschwendt@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mschwendt@gmail.com
--- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt mschwendt@gmail.com --- That can only be because you misunderstand Eric's review in comment 1 and my comment 2.
More slowly then, okay. From comment 1, where fedora-review reported this packaging failure:
[!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
This is a false positive. You could not move /usr/lib64/libdistorm3.so to the -devel package, because it is the only file in the base package. And it is a run-time library, not a development file.
[...]
I see you've updated the spec file silently. Please bump the "Release" version when you do that, and maintain the %changelog section, too.
The updated src.rpm still suffers from several issues. What you've changed silently with regard to the shared library doesn't make sense.
Do run "rpmlint -i" on both the src.rpm and the built rpms. Also try a simple "rpmbuild --rebuild" with your src.rpm. It cannot be built more than once because of the weird things you do in %prep:
$ rpmbuild --rebuild libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.src.rpm Installing libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.src.rpm warning: user rcvalle does not exist - using root warning: group rcvalle does not exist - using root warning: user rcvalle does not exist - using root warning: group rcvalle does not exist - using root Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /home/ms18b/tmp/rpm/tmp/rpm-tmp.lelXoK + umask 022 + cd /home/ms18b/tmp/rpm/BUILD + unzip /home/ms18b/tmp/rpm/SOURCES/libdistorm-3.3/distorm3.zip Archive: /home/ms18b/tmp/rpm/SOURCES/libdistorm-3.3/distorm3.zip replace distorm3/COPYING? [y]es, [n]o, [A]ll, [N]one, [r]ename: ^C
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #7 from Ramon de C Valle rcvalle@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #6)
That can only be because you misunderstand Eric's review in comment 1 and my comment 2.
More slowly then, okay. From comment 1, where fedora-review reported this packaging failure:
[!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
This is a false positive. You could not move /usr/lib64/libdistorm3.so to the -devel package, because it is the only file in the base package. And it is a run-time library, not a development file.
[...]
I see you've updated the spec file silently. Please bump the "Release" version when you do that, and maintain the %changelog section, too.
I didn't updated it "silently". I'm working with Eric and notified him about the update. And even before I updated it, none of the resulting packages were empty.
The updated src.rpm still suffers from several issues. What you've changed silently with regard to the shared library doesn't make sense.
Do run "rpmlint -i" on both the src.rpm and the built rpms. Also try a simple "rpmbuild --rebuild" with your src.rpm. It cannot be built more than once because of the weird things you do in %prep:
$ rpmbuild --rebuild libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.src.rpm Installing libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.src.rpm warning: user rcvalle does not exist - using root warning: group rcvalle does not exist - using root warning: user rcvalle does not exist - using root warning: group rcvalle does not exist - using root Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /home/ms18b/tmp/rpm/tmp/rpm-tmp.lelXoK
- umask 022
- cd /home/ms18b/tmp/rpm/BUILD
- unzip /home/ms18b/tmp/rpm/SOURCES/libdistorm-3.3/distorm3.zip
Archive: /home/ms18b/tmp/rpm/SOURCES/libdistorm-3.3/distorm3.zip replace distorm3/COPYING? [y]es, [n]o, [A]ll, [N]one, [r]ename: ^C
Just type "A". In addition, it doesn't happen for the "silently" updated Spec file anymore because I added the lines for removing the unpacked sources from previous builds, if any. Can you enumerate which "weird" things I do on prep? Btw, are you planning helping with anything?
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt mschwendt@gmail.com ---
And even before I updated it, none of the resulting packages were empty.
You still misunderstand it then.
Just type "A".
Interactive builds are not acceptable.
Can you enumerate which "weird" things I do on prep?
1) not starting in a clean/empty builddir 2) not building in a %{name}-%{version} namespace dir like thousands of other packages 3) unzipping the source manually instead of using %setup for that 4) waiting for keyboard input because of 1)
Btw, are you planning helping with anything?
Depends on whether you are willing to learn. At least you've started asking questions. That's good. I would use this %prep section, which solves all the problems in your one:
%prep %setup -q -c %{name}-%{version} %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version}/distorm3/make/linux -D -T
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #9 from Ramon de C Valle rcvalle@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #8)
And even before I updated it, none of the resulting packages were empty.
You still misunderstand it then.
Or maybe you're contradicting yourself or not being clear enough.
Just type "A".
Interactive builds are not acceptable.
Quoting myself from the previous comment:
"...it doesn't happen for the "silently" updated Spec file anymore because I added the lines for removing the unpacked sources from previous builds, if any."
Can you enumerate which "weird" things I do on prep?
- not starting in a clean/empty builddir
- not building in a %{name}-%{version} namespace dir like thousands of
other packages 3) unzipping the source manually instead of using %setup for that 4) waiting for keyboard input because of 1)
For 1 and 4 see my above answer, for 2 and 3, see below.
Btw, are you planning helping with anything?
Depends on whether you are willing to learn. At least you've started asking questions. That's good. I would use this %prep section, which solves all the problems in your one:
%prep %setup -q -c %{name}-%{version} %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version}/distorm3/make/linux -D -T
It seems redundant and also unnecessarily uses the %setup macro twice. Why is it better than:
rm -fr %{_builddir}/distorm3 unzip %{SOURCE0} %setup -q -n distorm3/make/linux -D -T
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #10 from Michael Schwendt mschwendt@gmail.com ---
Or maybe you're contradicting yourself or not being clear enough.
Not at all. Eric will be able to explain it to you, because it is his review you misunderstood to begin with.
"...it doesn't happen for the "silently" updated Spec file anymore
I've downloaded _two_ src.rpms from this ticket, and the second one still was suffering from the same problem. If you continue to publish updates silently in an attempt to fix issues reported to you, you need to accept that reviewers still refer to older files:
$ md5sum libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.src.rpm beac57444a21349c4a65c76f0e81cebc libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.src.rpm Build Date: Mon 14 Jan 2013 05:26:20 PM CET
That's why it's common practice to update the Release tag *and* to maintain a %changelog section in the spec file. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FrequentlyMadeMistakes
Why is it better than:
rm -fr %{_builddir}/distorm3 unzip %{SOURCE0} %setup -q -n distorm3/make/linux -D -T
Nobody claimed anything would be "better". I only pointed out that your %prep section didn't work well and suggested a cleaner working one. Your latest one still isn't pretty, and the top builddir is still not related to %name-%version, but if it works and if you like it so much, nobody would object. ;-)
What's the status of the package here now?
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #11 from Ramon de C Valle rcvalle@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #10)
Or maybe you're contradicting yourself or not being clear enough.
Not at all. Eric will be able to explain it to you, because it is his review you misunderstood to begin with.
"...it doesn't happen for the "silently" updated Spec file anymore
I've downloaded _two_ src.rpms from this ticket, and the second one still was suffering from the same problem. If you continue to publish updates silently in an attempt to fix issues reported to you, you need to accept that reviewers still refer to older files:
Maybe this is because I'm working with Eric to resolve the issues reported? Until now you haven't annouced yourself as a reviewer nor as a possible sponsor, so don't expect notifications or anything made specially for you.
$ md5sum libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.src.rpm beac57444a21349c4a65c76f0e81cebc libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.src.rpm Build Date: Mon 14 Jan 2013 05:26:20 PM CET
That's why it's common practice to update the Release tag *and* to maintain a %changelog section in the spec file. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FrequentlyMadeMistakes
I wouldn't change it or add a changelog entry until the package is ready for the initial release.
Why is it better than:
rm -fr %{_builddir}/distorm3 unzip %{SOURCE0} %setup -q -n distorm3/make/linux -D -T
Nobody claimed anything would be "better". I only pointed out that your %prep section didn't work well and suggested a cleaner working one. Your latest one still isn't pretty, and the top builddir is still not related to %name-%version, but if it works and if you like it so much, nobody would object. ;-)
What's the status of the package here now?
If you are going to review it, the latest version was just "silently" uploaded.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #12 from Michael Schwendt mschwendt@gmail.com --- Then I'll silently wait for public activity/progress in this ticket and add my comments.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #13 from Ramon de C Valle rcvalle@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [ ]: 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rcvalle/review- libdistorm/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [ ]: Package is not relocatable. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [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) [ ]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Patch0 (distorm3.produce-debugging-information.patch) Source0 (distorm3.zip) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [ ]: 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. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== 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.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: libdistorm-devel-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm libdistorm-debuginfo-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.src.rpm libdistorm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libdistorm.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) diStorm -> distort, storm libdistorm.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C diStorm libdistorm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US disassembler -> disassemble, disassembles, disassembled libdistorm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decomposer -> recomposed, decompose, decomposes libdistorm.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libdistorm3.so.3.3 libdistorm.x86_64: W: no-documentation libdistorm.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) diStorm -> distort, storm libdistorm.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C diStorm libdistorm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US disassembler -> disassemble, disassembles, disassembled libdistorm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decomposer -> recomposed, decompose, decomposes 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint libdistorm libdistorm-devel libdistorm-debuginfo libdistorm.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) diStorm -> distort, storm libdistorm.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C diStorm libdistorm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US disassembler -> disassemble, disassembles, disassembled libdistorm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decomposer -> recomposed, decompose, decomposes libdistorm.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libdistorm3.so.3.3 libdistorm.x86_64: W: no-documentation libdistorm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- libdistorm-devel-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libdistorm = 3.3-1.fc18
libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
libdistorm-debuginfo-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- libdistorm-devel-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm:
libdistorm-devel = 3.3-1.fc18 libdistorm-devel(x86-64) = 3.3-1.fc18
libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm:
libdistorm = 3.3-1.fc18 libdistorm(x86-64) = 3.3-1.fc18 libdistorm3.so.3.3()(64bit)
libdistorm-debuginfo-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm:
libdistorm-debuginfo = 3.3-1.fc18 libdistorm-debuginfo(x86-64) = 3.3-1.fc18
MD5-sum check ------------- http://distorm.googlecode.com/files/distorm3.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d311d232e108def8acac0d4f6514e7bc070e37d7aa123ab9a9a05b9322321582 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d311d232e108def8acac0d4f6514e7bc070e37d7aa123ab9a9a05b9322321582
Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n rpmbuild/SRPMS/libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.src.rpm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
Ramon de C Valle rcvalle@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: libdistorm |Review Request: libdistorm3 |- A lightweight, |- A lightweight, |easy-to-use and fast |easy-to-use and fast |disassembler/decomposer |disassembler/decomposer |library for x86/AMD64 |library for x86/AMD64
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #14 from Ramon de C Valle rcvalle@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~rdecarva/libdistorm3/libdistorm3.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~rdecarva/libdistorm3/libdistorm3-3.3-1.fc18.src.rp... Description: A lightweight, easy-to-use and fast disassembler/decomposer library for x86/AMD64. A decomposer means that you get a binary structure that describes an instruction rather than textual representation.
Fedora Account System Username: rcvalle
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #15 from Ramon de C Valle rcvalle@redhat.com ---
Package Review ==============
Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [ ]: 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rcvalle/review- libdistorm3/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [ ]: Package is not relocatable. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [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) [ ]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Patch0 (distorm3.produce-debugging-information.patch) Source0 (distorm3.zip) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [ ]: 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. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== 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.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: libdistorm3-debuginfo-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm libdistorm3-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm libdistorm3-devel-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm libdistorm3-3.3-1.fc18.src.rpm libdistorm3.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) diStorm -> distort, storm libdistorm3.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C diStorm libdistorm3.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US disassembler -> disassemble, disassembles, disassembled libdistorm3.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decomposer -> recomposed, decompose, decomposes libdistorm3.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libdistorm3.so.3.3 libdistorm3.x86_64: W: no-documentation libdistorm3-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libdistorm3.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) diStorm -> distort, storm libdistorm3.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C diStorm libdistorm3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US disassembler -> disassemble, disassembles, disassembled libdistorm3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decomposer -> recomposed, decompose, decomposes 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint libdistorm3 libdistorm3-devel libdistorm3-debuginfo libdistorm3.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) diStorm -> distort, storm libdistorm3.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C diStorm libdistorm3.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US disassembler -> disassemble, disassembles, disassembled libdistorm3.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decomposer -> recomposed, decompose, decomposes libdistorm3.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libdistorm3.so.3.3 libdistorm3.x86_64: W: no-documentation libdistorm3-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- libdistorm3-debuginfo-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libdistorm3-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
libdistorm3-devel-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libdistorm3 = 3.3-1.fc18
Provides -------- libdistorm3-debuginfo-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm:
libdistorm3-debuginfo = 3.3-1.fc18 libdistorm3-debuginfo(x86-64) = 3.3-1.fc18
libdistorm3-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm:
libdistorm3 = 3.3-1.fc18 libdistorm3(x86-64) = 3.3-1.fc18 libdistorm3.so.3.3()(64bit)
libdistorm3-devel-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm:
libdistorm3-devel = 3.3-1.fc18 libdistorm3-devel(x86-64) = 3.3-1.fc18
MD5-sum check ------------- http://distorm.googlecode.com/files/distorm3.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d311d232e108def8acac0d4f6514e7bc070e37d7aa123ab9a9a05b9322321582 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d311d232e108def8acac0d4f6514e7bc070e37d7aa123ab9a9a05b9322321582
Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n rpmbuild/SRPMS/libdistorm3-3.3-1.fc18.src.rpm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #16 from Michael Schwendt mschwendt@gmail.com --- Filling in the many '[ ]' fields in the report would be interesting as there some issues are waiting to be discovered. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
Eric Christensen eric@christensenplace.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |eric@christensenplace.us
--- Comment #17 from Eric Christensen eric@christensenplace.us --- Package Review ==============
Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [-]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [?]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: 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 (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/894338-libdistorm3/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [?]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [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]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Patch0 (distorm3.produce-debugging-information.patch) Source0 (distorm3.zip) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [!]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: libdistorm3-3.3-1.fc18.src.rpm libdistorm3-devel-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm libdistorm3-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm libdistorm3-debuginfo-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm libdistorm3.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) diStorm -> distort, storm libdistorm3.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C diStorm libdistorm3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US disassembler -> disassemble, disassembles, disassembled libdistorm3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decomposer -> recomposed, decompose, decomposes libdistorm3-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libdistorm3.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) diStorm -> distort, storm libdistorm3.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C diStorm libdistorm3.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US disassembler -> disassemble, disassembles, disassembled libdistorm3.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decomposer -> recomposed, decompose, decomposes libdistorm3.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libdistorm3.so.3.3 libdistorm3.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint libdistorm3 libdistorm3-devel libdistorm3-debuginfo libdistorm3.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) diStorm -> distort, storm libdistorm3.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C diStorm libdistorm3.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US disassembler -> disassemble, disassembles, disassembled libdistorm3.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decomposer -> recomposed, decompose, decomposes libdistorm3.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libdistorm3.so.3.3 libdistorm3.x86_64: W: no-documentation libdistorm3-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- libdistorm3-devel-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libdistorm3 = 3.3-1.fc18
libdistorm3-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
libdistorm3-debuginfo-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- libdistorm3-devel-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm:
libdistorm3-devel = 3.3-1.fc18 libdistorm3-devel(x86-64) = 3.3-1.fc18
libdistorm3-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm:
libdistorm3 = 3.3-1.fc18 libdistorm3(x86-64) = 3.3-1.fc18 libdistorm3.so.3.3()(64bit)
libdistorm3-debuginfo-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm:
libdistorm3-debuginfo = 3.3-1.fc18 libdistorm3-debuginfo(x86-64) = 3.3-1.fc18
MD5-sum check ------------- http://distorm.googlecode.com/files/distorm3.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d311d232e108def8acac0d4f6514e7bc070e37d7aa123ab9a9a05b9322321582 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d311d232e108def8acac0d4f6514e7bc070e37d7aa123ab9a9a05b9322321582
Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 894338
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #18 from Eric Christensen eric@christensenplace.us --- The only problem I see is that the COPYING file is not in %docs. The COPYING file is the license text and should be included in the package.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #19 from Michael Schwendt mschwendt@gmail.com --- Hopefully this comment catches all issues:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.[4
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
A complicated %prep section makes access to local %doc files more complicated, btw.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/894338-libdistorm3/licensecheck.txt
License: GPLv3
GPLv3+ actually.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#.22or_later_ver...
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
It doesn't.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install.
Since %install automatically empties %buildroot, there is no need to "rm -fr %{buildroot}%{_libdir}" either.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Not yet.
Summary: diStorm
This is a very bad summary. The summary should be a short and concise description of the package. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#summary
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Debatable. There is nothing that mandates adding the "lib" prefix or appending the "3". Upstream name is just "distorm". OpenSUSE have packaged it differently, just for reference: http://rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/search.php?query=distorm
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
It bears a risk though to install a very generic file name, such "mnemonics.h", directly into /usr/include instead of placing files like that in a subdir.
$ rpmls -p libdistorm3-devel-3.3-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/distorm.h -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/mnemonics.h
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires).
Not yet. There still is no SONAME:
libdistorm.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libdistorm3.so.3.3
And what the spec file tries to do about that in the %install section doesn't make sense and doesn't result in sane RPM dependencies either.
[x]: Package functions as described.
Dubious. Without a libdistorm3.so it's somewhat inconvenient to compile/link with this library. Has it been tested?
[!]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
This '!' seems to be fedora-review's warning that the summary is not English language, but just the name of this software.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #20 from Ramon de C Valle rcvalle@redhat.com --- Hi Eric,
I've updated both the SPEC file and packages. I think it is OK for Clint to proceed.
Thanks,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
Ramon de C Valle rcvalle@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed| |2013-08-19 19:07:27
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
Ramon de C Valle rcvalle@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|NOTABUG |DEFERRED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | CC| |cickumqt@gmail.com
--- Comment #21 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- Your poor attitude made me sick.
Michael is a nice guy since 2003 being active in Fedora community. He is also a sponsor, you prefer too much of Eric, however you still need sponsor now.
I don't have interests in such review however this package is in my to-do list.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
Kees de Jong keesdejong+bugs@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |NEW CC| |keesdejong+bugs@gmail.com, | |rcvalle@redhat.com Resolution|DEFERRED |--- Flags| |needinfo?(rcvalle@redhat.co | |m) Keywords| |Reopened
--- Comment #41 from Kees de Jong keesdejong+bugs@gmail.com --- Why is this package not in the Fedora repository? The package `volatility` requires this package, which is already available in the Fedora repository. Because I needed the package `volatility` I also created a quick and dirty spec file [1], which builds and runs fine on my system. Without the distorm library, `volatility` doesn't work.
The spec file [2] provided in this Bugzilla ticket isn't available anymore. Can I take over this package if the original author of this package-review request lost interest? Of course, I will improve my spec file further.
[1] https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/keesdejong/public_git/rpmbuild.git/tree/SPECS/... [2] https://people.redhat.com/~rdecarva/libdistorm/libdistorm.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #42 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Mark it ar dead review and open a new bug for your review
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org