Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/r2cutter.spec SRPM URL: https://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/r2cutter-0.1.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: R2Cutter is a Qt and C++ GUI for radare2. It is the continuation of Cutter before the fork to keep radare2 as backend. Its goal is making an advanced, customizable and FOSS reverse-engineering platform while keeping the user experience at mind. The r2cutter is created by reverse engineers for reverse engineers. Focus on supporting latest version of radare2. Recommend the use of system installed libraries/radare2. Closer integration between r2 and the UI. Fedora Account System Username: rebus
Hello Henrik, Lubomir here is the packaged r2cutter, which works with the radare2 4.5.0+. This should fix the gap of cutter-re failing to build until the rizin package is created for cutter-re. I guess Riccardo (as one of the main developpers of cutter.re and rizin would probably have more aim maintaining those packages right Riccardo? Best regards Michal Ambroz
Here is scratch build for rawhide https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=64152990 Related to bugzilla IDs: #1929231 #1929226 #1923412
- These directories must be owned: [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/RadareOrg, /usr/share/RadareOrg/r2cutter/translations, /usr/share/RadareOrg/r2cutter 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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "Creative Commons Attribution- ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3". 802 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/r2cutter/review-r2cutter/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/RadareOrg, /usr/share/RadareOrg/r2cutter/translations, /usr/share/RadareOrg/r2cutter [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. [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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Dist tag is present. [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 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not 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]: 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: [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2344960 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: r2cutter-0.1.1-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm r2cutter-devel-0.1.1-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm r2cutter-debuginfo-0.1.1-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm r2cutter-debugsource-0.1.1-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm r2cutter-0.1.1-1.fc35.src.rpm r2cutter.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary r2cutter r2cutter-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib r2cutter-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Thank you. Here is the fixed package + added some patches as reported/fixed to upstream: Spec URL: https://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/r2cutter.spec SRPM URL: https://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/r2cutter-0.1.1-2.fc33.src.rpm
- Could please document in a comment why each patch is needed? Package is approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
Thank you. > - Could please document in a comment why each patch is needed? Sure I will add it there. All of them just cosmetics to clear the compilation warnings on gcc10+ and reported/accepted by the mainstream for next release. Michal Ambroz
Thanks. I am not using Cutter myself (yet) so can't comment much on this package, but this solves the update deadlock for radare until it's replaced by Rizin. I have not yet pushed the Radare update to f33/f34 due to it breaking Cutter.
Michal, would you also be interested in co-maintaining radare? recutter depends quite intimately on it and it may take some days before I notice update requests.
Pagure request-repo raised for the r2cutter https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33095
(In reply to Henrik Nordström from comment #7) > but this solves the update deadlock for radare until it's replaced by Rizin. > I have not yet pushed the Radare update to f33/f34 due to it breaking Cutter. Yes, that is the plan. I have seen your update in testing the new radare version and I would like to resolve the clash. (In reply to Henrik Nordström from comment #8) > Michal, would you also be interested in co-maintaining radare? recutter depends quite intimately on it and it may take some days before I notice update requests. Yes, thanks I would like to. ( I was actually pushing the package to formally get accepted to Fedora for couple of years until Riccardo from RedHat kindly took over https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1368855) I would like to keep the radare2 in Fedora (as I am using it for several years) and I would also like to push it to EPEL as well. I offer you/Lubomir/Riccardo the same = co-maintenance for r2cutter. Best regards Michal Ambroz
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/r2cutter
FEDORA-2021-c7008e8a44 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-c7008e8a44
FEDORA-2021-4244313b08 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-4244313b08
FEDORA-2021-65c776f7c9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-65c776f7c9
FEDORA-2021-65c776f7c9 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-65c776f7c9 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-65c776f7c9 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-4244313b08 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-4244313b08 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-4244313b08 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-c7008e8a44 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-c7008e8a44 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-c7008e8a44 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-c7008e8a44 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-4244313b08 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-65c776f7c9 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.