Spec URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org//libdasm.spec SRPM URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org//libdasm-1.5-4.fc27.src.rpm Description: libdasm is a C-library that tries to provide simple and convenient way to disassemble Intel x86 raw op-code bytes (machine code). It can parse and print out op-codes in AT&T and Intel syntax. The op-codes are based on IA-32 Intel Architecture Software Developer's Manual Volume 2: Instruction Set Reference, order number 243667, year 2004. Non-Intel instructions are not supported at the moment (also, non-Intel but Intel-compatible CPU extensions, like AMD 3DNow! are not supported).
==== Koji builds OK $ koji build --scratch rawhide libdasm-1.5-4.fc27.src.rpm Uploading srpm: libdasm-1.5-4.fc27.src.rpm [====================================] 100% 00:00:00 85.35 KiB 209.66 KiB/sec Created task: 25896515 Task info: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25896515 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 25896515 build (rawhide, libdasm-1.5-4.fc27.src.rpm): free 25896515 build (rawhide, libdasm-1.5-4.fc27.src.rpm): free -> open (buildvm-12.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 25896518 buildArch (libdasm-1.5-4.fc27.src.rpm, aarch64): open (buildvm-aarch64-13.arm.fedoraproject.org) 25896522 buildArch (libdasm-1.5-4.fc27.src.rpm, armv7hl): open (buildvm-armv7-04.arm.fedoraproject.org) 25896520 buildArch (libdasm-1.5-4.fc27.src.rpm, i686): open (buildhw-04.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 25896516 buildArch (libdasm-1.5-4.fc27.src.rpm, x86_64): open (buildvm-29.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 25896517 buildArch (libdasm-1.5-4.fc27.src.rpm, ppc64le): open (buildvm-ppc64le-13.ppc.fedoraproject.org) 25896521 buildArch (libdasm-1.5-4.fc27.src.rpm, s390x): open (buildvm-s390x-07.s390.fedoraproject.org) 25896519 buildArch (libdasm-1.5-4.fc27.src.rpm, ppc64): open (buildvm-ppc64-11.ppc.fedoraproject.org) 25896520 buildArch (libdasm-1.5-4.fc27.src.rpm, i686): open (buildhw-04.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 7 open 1 done 0 failed 25896516 buildArch (libdasm-1.5-4.fc27.src.rpm, x86_64): open (buildvm-29.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 6 open 2 done 0 failed 25896521 buildArch (libdasm-1.5-4.fc27.src.rpm, s390x): open (buildvm-s390x-07.s390.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 5 open 3 done 0 failed 25896517 buildArch (libdasm-1.5-4.fc27.src.rpm, ppc64le): open (buildvm-ppc64le-13.ppc.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 4 open 4 done 0 failed 25896518 buildArch (libdasm-1.5-4.fc27.src.rpm, aarch64): open (buildvm-aarch64-13.arm.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 3 open 5 done 0 failed 25896519 buildArch (libdasm-1.5-4.fc27.src.rpm, ppc64): open (buildvm-ppc64-11.ppc.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 2 open 6 done 0 failed 25896522 buildArch (libdasm-1.5-4.fc27.src.rpm, armv7hl): open (buildvm-armv7-04.arm.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 1 open 7 done 0 failed 25896515 build (rawhide, libdasm-1.5-4.fc27.src.rpm): open (buildvm-12.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 0 open 8 done 0 failed 25896515 build (rawhide, libdasm-1.5-4.fc27.src.rpm) completed successfully ==== rpmlint complains only about the macros in comments and spelling of disassembly $ rpmlint libdasm.spec libdasm-1.5-4.fc27.src.rpm libdasm.spec:8: W: macro-in-comment %{name} libdasm.spec:8: W: macro-in-comment %{version} libdasm.spec: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 8: %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz libdasm.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) disassembly -> disassemble, dis assembly, dis-assembly libdasm.src:8: W: macro-in-comment %{name} libdasm.src:8: W: macro-in-comment %{version} libdasm.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 8: %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings.
So... the same legal issue which derailed 499875 is present here. We've got two conflicting license statements: From README.txt "libdasm is public domain software. You can do whatever you like with it." But, the code (and the top of README.txt) says: (c) 2004 - 2006 jt / nologin.org If something is in the Public Domain, it means that the author has abandoned their copyright on a work. But, if you have a (c) statement, then they are asserting... copyright on the work. They do not have to make that statement to have copyright (thanks to the Berne Convention), but by having it present, it effectively negates the public domain declaration, leaving everyone (except the copyright holder) with no license terms on the work. There are several ways to fix this. I'll list them in the order of preference: * Relicense the work under an established open source license. In bz499875, the upstream appeared to be willing to relicense under BSD, which would work fine. This also resolves the international complexity and ambiguity which Public Domain works have. * Switch to a Creative Commons Zero license, which is intended to resolve the Public Domain issues by enabling a license when it is not possible to abandon copyright entirely. * Remove all of the (c) statements from the codebase and README, and replace them with the public domain statement, making it clear that copyright is abandoned on the work. I filed an issue in the upstream github repo (https://github.com/jtpereyda/libdasm/issues/3), hopefully that will be a good start in getting this fixed. As is, I'm blocking this against FE-Legal.
Spec URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org//libdasm.spec SRPM URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org//libdasm-1.5-5.20151201gitc1afd03.fc27.src.rpm - Switch to most current github snapshot (https://github.com/jtpereyda/libdasm) - Tom thank you for your review, I have already tried to contact the original author Here is the research on the code origins: - Original author Jarkko Turkulainen <jt () klake org> put the code into public domain http://www.klake.org/~jt/misc/libdasm-1.4.tar.gz -> https://web.archive.org/web/20060718012748/http://www.klake.org/~jt/misc/libdasm-1.4.tar.gz http://www.klake.org/~jt/misc/libdasm-1.5.tar.gz -> https://web.archive.org/web/20120119123445/http://www.klake.org/~jt/misc/libdasm-1.5.tar.gz https://labsblog.f-secure.com/author/turkja/ http://en.gravatar.com/turkja - There was another fork on https://code.google.com/archive/p/libdasm/ by Ange Albertini - Current code being maintained on github by Joshua Pereyda - https://github.com/jtpereyda/libdasm
- Not needed, it's in the default buildroot # ldconfig is provided by glibc Requires(post): ldconfig Requires(postun): ldconfig - Group: is not used in Fedora - Use the new %ldconfig_scriptlets instead of: %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets#Upgrade.2Fcompatibility_impact Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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]: 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]: 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 %license. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 24 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libdasm/review- libdasm/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Dist tag is present. Note: Multiple Release: tags found [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [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: [-]: 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. [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]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libdasm-1.5-5.20151201gitc1afd03.fc29.x86_64.rpm libdasm-devel-1.5-5.20151201gitc1afd03.fc29.x86_64.rpm python2-pydasm-1.5-5.20151201gitc1afd03.fc29.x86_64.rpm libdasm-debuginfo-1.5-5.20151201gitc1afd03.fc29.x86_64.rpm libdasm-debugsource-1.5-5.20151201gitc1afd03.fc29.x86_64.rpm libdasm-1.5-5.20151201gitc1afd03.fc29.src.rpm libdasm.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) disassembly -> disassemble, dis assembly, dis-assembly libdasm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary das libdasm-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libdasm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation python2-pydasm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdasm -> liberalism python2-pydasm.x86_64: W: no-documentation python2-pydasm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary das.py libdasm-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation libdasm.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) disassembly -> disassemble, dis assembly, dis-assembly libdasm.src:58: W: macro-in-comment %{name} libdasm.src:58: W: macro-in-comment %{version} libdasm.src:59: W: macro-in-comment %{gituser} libdasm.src:59: W: macro-in-comment %{gitname} libdasm.src:59: W: macro-in-comment %{version} libdasm.src:59: W: macro-in-comment %{name} libdasm.src:59: W: macro-in-comment %{version} 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 16 warnings.
Hello Robert-Andre, thank you for review. >- Not needed, it's in the default buildroot removed >- Use the new %ldconfig_scriptlets instead of: used the scriptlets >- Group: is not used in Fedora is mandatory for EPEL In the meanwhile the upstream allowed to change the license to BSD, this should clear also the FE-LEGAL blocking. Spec URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/libdasm.spec SRPM URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/libdasm-1.5-6.20180328gitc315f8d.fc27.src.rpm
- Use the new tagged release 1.6 https://github.com/jtpereyda/libdasm/releases Package approved.
bump to tagged version Spec URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/libdasm.spec SRPM URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/libdasm-1.6-1.fc27.src.rpm
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libdasm
- removing tab libdasm (due to bug in bugzilla it wont be possibe to search for the package) - package was built in koji, now submitting to updates
libdasm-1.6-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-8adce9baab
libdasm-1.6-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-0acbb92afb
libdasm-1.6-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-c9d5e8c275
libdasm-1.6-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-a0917c8330
libdasm-1.6-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-2343c53de1
libdasm-1.6-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-a0917c8330
libdasm-1.6-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-c9d5e8c275
libdasm-1.6-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-0acbb92afb
libdasm-1.6-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-2343c53de1
libdasm-1.6-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-8adce9baab
libdasm-1.6-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libdasm-1.6-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libdasm-1.6-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libdasm-1.6-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libdasm-1.6-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.