Bug 459016

ExcludedArch: ppc ppc64
The package dynamically writes x86 code and is specially for x86(uses asm)

MUST Items: 

OK - rpmlint is clean
OK - follows Naming Guidelines
OK - spec file is named as %{name}.spec

xx - package does not meet Packaging Guidelines
    + Instead of just replacing -03 with -02 in the Makefile, you should try to
      use the value of RPM_OPT_FLAGS or %{optflags} as CFLAGS. See
      https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags
      In this case, you could use:
      make CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS
    + According to
      https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps you
      should use 'install -p'.
    + You could consider adding CHANGES to %doc as it gives an indication of
      the direction the project is taking.

OK - license meets Licensing Guidelines
OK - License field meets actual license
OK - upstream license file included in %doc
OK - spec file uses American English
OK - spec file is legible
OK - sources match upstream sources
OK - package builds successfully

xx - ExcludeArch is needed
     The upstream page (http://code.google.com/p/bunny-the-fuzzer/) says:
     "Bunny is currently known to support Linux, ... on IA32 and IA64
     systems."
     One should note that IA64 is different from x86_64 or amd64. So it would
     be a good idea to cross-check whether IA64 has been mistakenly used to
     refer to x86_64 or amd64, and whether x86_64 or amd64 is supported or not.
     I think that x86_64 is supported since it seemed to work with gcc.x86_64.
     In case IA64 has been mistakenly used, we should ExcludeArch ia64,
     alongwith the other secondary architectures (ie., alpha, arm, s390, sparc)
     which might not be supported.

OK - build dependencies correctly listed
OK - no locales
OK - no shared libraries
OK - package is not relocatable
OK - file and directory ownership
OK - no duplicates in %file
OK - file permissions set properly
OK - %clean present
OK - macros used consistently
OK - contains code and permissable content
OK - -doc is not needed
OK - contents of %doc does not affect the runtime
OK - no header files
OK - no static libraries
OK - no pkgconfig files
OK - no library files
OK - -devel is not needed
OK - no libtool archives
OK - %{name}.desktop file not needed
OK - does not own files or directories owned by other packages
OK - buildroot correctly prepped
OK - all file names valid UTF-8

SHOULD Items:

OK - upstream provides license text
xx - no translations for description and summary
OK - package builds in mock successfully
OK - package builds on all supported architectures
OK - package functions as expected
OK - scriptlets are not needed
OK - subpackages are not needed
OK - no pkgconfig files
OK - no file dependencies

xx - package does not meet Packaging Guidelines
    + Instead of just replacing -03 with -02 in the Makefile, you should try to
      use the value of RPM_OPT_FLAGS or %{optflags} as CFLAGS. See
      https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags
      In this case, you could use:
      make CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS

It has a hand coded Makefile with hard written CFLAGS so replacing seems to me okay


    + According to
      https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps you
      should use 'install -p'.

Done

    + You could consider adding CHANGES to %doc as it gives an indication of
      the direction the project is taking.

Done

xx - ExcludeArch is needed
     The upstream page (http://code.google.com/p/bunny-the-fuzzer/) says:
     "Bunny is currently known to support Linux, ... on IA32 and IA64
     systems."
     One should note that IA64 is different from x86_64 or amd64. So it would
     be a good idea to cross-check whether IA64 has been mistakenly used to
     refer to x86_64 or amd64, and whether x86_64 or amd64 is supported or not.
     I think that x86_64 is supported since it seemed to work with gcc.x86_64.
     In case IA64 has been mistakenly used, we should ExcludeArch ia64,
     alongwith the other secondary architectures (ie., alpha, arm, s390, sparc)
     which might not be supported.

From http://code.google.com/p/bunny-the-fuzzer/wiki/BunnyDoc 

"""The only platforms known to work fine are Linux, flavors of BSD, and Cygwin on IA32 platforms. Support for 64-bit and other unix systems is not confirmed. There is no support for non-x86 architectures, although this requires very few tweaks to correct. """

so ia32 it works. ia64 and other non-x86 need to be excluded.


Done

http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/bunny-0.93-2.fc10.src.rpm -> SRPM
http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/bunny.spec -> SPEC

>It has a hand coded Makefile with hard written CFLAGS so replacing seems to me
>okay

Fixed. It highlights the whole messy code written. I will notify upstream about it.

Moved ia64 to secondary architectures list. 

Fixed.


http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/bunny.spec
http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/bunny-0.93-3.fc10.src.rpm

>     + You could consider adding CHANGES to %doc as it gives an indication of
>       the direction the project is taking.
> 
> Done

I think you forgot to add it. :-)

> xx - ExcludeArch is needed
>      The upstream page (http://code.google.com/p/bunny-the-fuzzer/) says:
>      "Bunny is currently known to support Linux, ... on IA32 and IA64
>      systems."
>      One should note that IA64 is different from x86_64 or amd64. So it would
>      be a good idea to cross-check whether IA64 has been mistakenly used to
>      refer to x86_64 or amd64, and whether x86_64 or amd64 is supported or not.
>      I think that x86_64 is supported since it seemed to work with gcc.x86_64.
>      In case IA64 has been mistakenly used, we should ExcludeArch ia64,
>      alongwith the other secondary architectures (ie., alpha, arm, s390, sparc)
>      which might not be supported.
> 
> From http://code.google.com/p/bunny-the-fuzzer/wiki/BunnyDoc 
> 
> """The only platforms known to work fine are Linux, flavors of BSD, and Cygwin
> on IA32 platforms. Support for 64-bit and other unix systems is not confirmed.
> There is no support for non-x86 architectures, although this requires very few
> tweaks to correct. """
> 
> so ia32 it works. ia64 and other non-x86 need to be excluded.

Although x86_64 is not ia32 bunny seems to work on Fedora 9 x86_64 for me. I am not sure about this particular architecture.

>I think you forgot to add it. :-)

Aah! yes.
Included now.

it works on x86.

http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/bunny-0.93-4.fc10.src.rpm
http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/bunny.spec

+---------------------------------+
| This package is APPROVED by me. |
+---------------------------------+

However:

+ Building the package on Fedora 9 x86_64 spews a large number of compiler warnings. Those may look harmless but can cause quite a pain at times. What does upstream have to say?

+ Please remember to block ExcludeArch blocker bugs of all the architectures that are not supported.

no reply till now. But upstream is active. Waiting for response. These warnings are very easy to fix.

Yeah - I will block ExcludeArch blocker Bugs before importing.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: bunny
Short Description: Instrumented C code security fuzzer
Owners: rakesh
Branches: F-8 F-9
InitialCC: rakesh
Cvsextras Commits: yes

cvs done

bunny-0.93-5.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bunny-0.93-5.fc9

bunny-0.93-5.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bunny-0.93-5.fc8

bunny-0.93-5.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

bunny-0.93-5.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.