https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1163666 Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxx> --- It looks like parallel-installing the 64-bit and 32-bit versions would be quite useful. That would mostly involve moving everything to %{_libdir}, possibly all in a subpackage, and having a separate package with symlinks. The arch packages should possibly also install an afl-fuzz-64 or afl-fuzz-32 symlink in %{_bindir}, too. (Feel free to disagree with me here.) I'm ambivalent about the sed vs make args. I think make args would be nicer (as noted above). The source URL is actively problematic. Downloading it right now results in a tarball that is materially different (docs only, fortunately) from the one in your SRPM. Can you use a different URL or none at all and ask upstream to provide usable download links? Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/luto/devel/fedora/afl /american-fuzzy-lop/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: sed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/luto/devel/fedora/afl/american- fuzzy-lop/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/afl ^^^ The package must own %{_libdir}/afl [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/afl [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. ^^^ %{optflags} isn't being honored. Something like make CFLAGS="%{optflags}" could work. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. I think that BR: sed is unnecessary, though. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. It does require it, and it's there. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 686080 bytes in 25 files. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines See notes above [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 %doc. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [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: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. Justified in the spec. [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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. Will test tomorrow. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: 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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: american-fuzzy-lop-0.45b-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm american-fuzzy-lop-0.45b-1.fc20.src.rpm american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fuzzer -> fuzzier, fuzzes, fuzzed american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US corpuses -> corpses, corpus's, corp uses american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fuzzers -> fuzzes, buzzers, Fuzzbuster Yay for the stock dictionaries. american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/doc/american-fuzzy-lop/samples/strings-bfd-badptr2.elf american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/share/doc/american-fuzzy-lop/samples/strings-bfd-badptr2.elf american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/share/doc/american-fuzzy-lop/samples/strings-bfd-badptr2.elf american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/doc/american-fuzzy-lop/samples/strings-bfd-badptr.elf american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/share/doc/american-fuzzy-lop/samples/strings-bfd-badptr.elf american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/share/doc/american-fuzzy-lop/samples/strings-bfd-badptr.elf There are, amusingly, all false positives :) american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/american-fuzzy-lop/samples/strings-stack-overflow american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/american-fuzzy-lop/samples/unzip-t-mem-corruption.zip american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary afl-showmap american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary afl-g++ american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary afl-fuzz american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary afl-gcc american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: E: bad-crc-in-zip foo/ /usr/share/doc/american-fuzzy-lop/samples/unzip-t-mem-corruption.zip american-fuzzy-lop.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fuzzer -> fuzzier, fuzzes, fuzzed american-fuzzy-lop.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US corpuses -> corpses, corpus's, corp uses american-fuzzy-lop.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fuzzers -> fuzzes, buzzers, Fuzzbuster american-fuzzy-lop.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US afl -> fl, ail, aft Nothing to see here. american-fuzzy-lop.src: W: file-size-mismatch afl.tgz = 662910, http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/afl.tgz = 663175 As mentioned above, this seems to be a real problem. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 14 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint american-fuzzy-lop american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fuzzer -> fuzzier, fuzzes, fuzzed american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US corpuses -> corpses, corpus's, corp uses american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fuzzers -> fuzzes, buzzers, Fuzzbuster american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/doc/american-fuzzy-lop/samples/strings-bfd-badptr2.elf american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/share/doc/american-fuzzy-lop/samples/strings-bfd-badptr2.elf american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/share/doc/american-fuzzy-lop/samples/strings-bfd-badptr2.elf american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/share/doc/american-fuzzy-lop/samples/strings-bfd-badptr2.elf american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/doc/american-fuzzy-lop/samples/strings-bfd-badptr.elf american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/share/doc/american-fuzzy-lop/samples/strings-bfd-badptr.elf american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/share/doc/american-fuzzy-lop/samples/strings-bfd-badptr.elf american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/share/doc/american-fuzzy-lop/samples/strings-bfd-badptr.elf american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/american-fuzzy-lop/samples/strings-stack-overflow american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/american-fuzzy-lop/samples/unzip-t-mem-corruption.zip american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary afl-showmap american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary afl-g++ american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary afl-fuzz american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary afl-gcc american-fuzzy-lop.x86_64: E: bad-crc-in-zip foo/ /usr/share/doc/american-fuzzy-lop/samples/unzip-t-mem-corruption.zip 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 11 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- american-fuzzy-lop (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gcc libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- american-fuzzy-lop: american-fuzzy-lop american-fuzzy-lop(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/afl.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4bd6d85e691e3d196b2f1ac4c5de030e7be4f0fd3382d9272dff2e9d97c2e744 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 95742783f49945f889be3bebd9d3b4f7d2d9243d798b311d93217939c2e719d5 diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn ../american-fuzzy-lop-0.45b-1.fc21.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-20-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 -- 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review