Spec URL: https://xvitaly.fedorapeople.org/for-review/pe-bear.spec SRPM URL: https://xvitaly.fedorapeople.org/for-review/pe-bear-0.6.5-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: Portable Executable analyzing with a friendly GUI Fedora Account System Username: xvitaly
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5568940 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2173501-pe-bear/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05568940-pe-bear/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Approved. 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", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License", "MIT License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0". 1494 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/vascom/2173501-pe- bear/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. [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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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 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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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: [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). [x]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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: [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: pe-bear-0.6.5-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm pe-bear-debuginfo-0.6.5-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm pe-bear-debugsource-0.6.5-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm pe-bear-0.6.5-1.fc39.src.rpm ====================================================================== rpmlint session starts ===================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp5ele3wu0')] checks: 31, packages: 4 pe-bear.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary PE-bear ======================================= 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.3 s ====================================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: pe-bear-debuginfo-0.6.5-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm ====================================================================== rpmlint session starts ===================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpggl80ab8')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ======================================= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s ====================================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 3 pe-bear.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary PE-bear 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/capstone-engine/capstone/archive/afb5575140dbf8405a8f6c3ec00ba1f954f668d0/capstone-afb5575.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 89411f7a5d6e38bf9f954ddf599213d3ebe64c93832a4978f40f4f2487cdb464 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 89411f7a5d6e38bf9f954ddf599213d3ebe64c93832a4978f40f4f2487cdb464 https://github.com/hasherezade/bearparser/archive/0e07f217650bf1fb1883b602398377e376c8ace2/bearparser-0e07f21.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ed16f0498f035040c61308568cbb0c6c779ac020560c65ec6a910836e36753c0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ed16f0498f035040c61308568cbb0c6c779ac020560c65ec6a910836e36753c0 https://github.com/hasherezade/pe-bear/archive/v0.6.5/pe-bear-0.6.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e4d01fc4260deeaf01d4356a83bee7fd2a68c93b2d100ed9c9833930fb0a1c4d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e4d01fc4260deeaf01d4356a83bee7fd2a68c93b2d100ed9c9833930fb0a1c4d Requires -------- pe-bear (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) pe-bear-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pe-bear-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- pe-bear: application() application(net.hasherezade.pe-bear.desktop) bundled(bearparser) bundled(capstone) metainfo() metainfo(net.hasherezade.pe-bear.metainfo.xml) pe-bear pe-bear(x86-64) pe-bear-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) pe-bear-debuginfo pe-bear-debuginfo(x86-64) pe-bear-debugsource: pe-bear-debugsource pe-bear-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2173501 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: R, SugarActivity, PHP, Python, Java, Haskell, Ocaml, fonts, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pe-bear
Any reason not to package bundled bearparser and capstone separately?
FEDORA-2023-157c1e23c3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-157c1e23c3
FEDORA-2023-157c1e23c3 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-157c1e23c3 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-157c1e23c3 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-157c1e23c3 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.