Spec URL: https://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/libemu.spec SRPM URL: https://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/libemu-0.2.0-17.20130410gitab48695.fc33.src.rpm Description: The libemu is a small library written in C offering basic x86 emulation and shell-code detection using GetPC heuristics. Intended use is within network intrusion/prevention detection and honeypots. Fedora Account System Username: rebus
This request is to revive retired package and get it back to rawhide (is still in f33/f32/epel). Package was retired based on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1863995 (FTBFS) I managed to make it working again with new libtool and gcc10+. Package is needed as dependency for dionaea honeypot.
- Shouldn't you use %bcond_without within the Fedora condition? Py2 package are not allowed in Fedora anymore. # libemu currently doesn't work with python3 %bcond_with python3 %if 0%{?fedora} || ( 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} >= 7 ) %bcond_with python3 %endif
- You get the archive from DinoTools but you point the URL to buffer: URL: https://github.com/buffer/libemu # https://github.com/DinoTools/libemu/ - make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build - Why is this touching needed: %py3_install || touch %{buildroot}/%{python3_sitearch}/python3_install_failed [ -f python3_build_failed ] && touch %{buildroot}/%{python3_sitearch}/python3_build_failed - This is not needed anymore: %ldconfig_scriptlets - Globbing the entire %{python2_sitearch}/* and %{python3_sitearch}/* is now forbidden, please be more specific instead - In order to avoid unintentional soname bump, we recommend not globbing the major soname version, please be more specific here too: %{_libdir}/*.so.2* - please remove the trailing spaces throughout the SPEC - Please BR gcc and make explicitly - Patch the obsolete M4 macros: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: libemu- ab48695b7113db692982a1839e3d6eb9e73e90a9/configure.ac:13 ⇒ Use AC_CONFIG_HEADERS AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: libemu- ab48695b7113db692982a1839e3d6eb9e73e90a9/configure.ac:42 ⇒ Use LT_INIT Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libemu See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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. [-]: 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", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 54 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libemu/review-libemu/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 20480 bytes in 3 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 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]: 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 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. [-]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libemu-0.2.0-17.20130410gitab48695.fc35.x86_64.rpm libemu-devel-0.2.0-17.20130410gitab48695.fc35.x86_64.rpm libemu-debuginfo-0.2.0-17.20130410gitab48695.fc35.x86_64.rpm libemu-debugsource-0.2.0-17.20130410gitab48695.fc35.x86_64.rpm libemu-0.2.0-17.20130410gitab48695.fc35.src.rpm libemu.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libemu.so.2.0.0 exit.5 libemu.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scprofiler libemu.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sctest libemu.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/DinoTools/libemu/archive/ab48695b7113db692982a1839e3d6eb9e73e90a9/libemu-0.2.0-ab48695.tar.gz <urlopen error timed out> 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Thank you for review and comments. Updated package Spec URL: https://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/libemu.spec SRPM URL: https://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/libemu-0.2.0-18.20130410gitab48695.fc33.src.rpm > Shouldn't you use %bcond_without within the Fedora condition? Py2 package are not allowed in Fedora anymore. py2 package is there for the RHEL7 where py2 module was already released in the past py3 module is not working at the point, I hope to include it once it is ready - hence the conditions so I can try easily just by passing the argument > - You get the archive from DinoTools but you point the URL to buffer: Thanks for spotting - this is wrong, changed back to DinoTools. I plan to migrate to buffer's repository in the future - it looks more living than the DinoTools, but it is not ready yet to switch over. > - make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build OK > - Why is this touching needed: It was ignoring the failed python3 build ... but you are right, this should go away and package build should fail if part is failing. > - This is not needed anymore: %ldconfig_scriptlets Still needed for EPEL7 ... I will state that explicit > - Globbing the entire %{python2_sitearch}/* and %{python3_sitearch}/* is now forbidden, please be more specific instead OK > - In order to avoid unintentional soname bump, we recommend not globbing the major soname version, please be more specific here too: OK > - please remove the trailing spaces throughout the SPEC removed > AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found AM_CONFIG_HEADER AC_PROG_LIBTOOL Already part of patch 14 >- Please BR gcc and make explicitly >- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a OK added. GCC was actually brought by libtool, but better to state that explicitly >- Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Yes ... that is the same package. Was kicked from rawhide due to FTBFS. Now trying to return.
Package approved.
pushed to f33,f34,f35