[Bug 1479022] Review Request: preeny - Some helpful preload libraries for pwning stuff

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479022



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
preeny-0.1-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1479022] Review Request: preeny - Some helpful preload libraries for pwning stuff

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479022



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
preeny-0.1-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1479022] Review Request: preeny - Some helpful preload libraries for pwning stuff

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479022

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2017-08-14 06:35:19 |2017-08-28 12:19:34



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
preeny-0.1-3.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1479022] Review Request: preeny - Some helpful preload libraries for pwning stuff

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479022



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
preeny-0.1-3.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-2017-9f4ec77ae9

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1479022] Review Request: preeny - Some helpful preload libraries for pwning stuff

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479022



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
preeny-0.1-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2017-224cdd4d83

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1479022] Review Request: preeny - Some helpful preload libraries for pwning stuff

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479022

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 Resolution|RAWHIDE |---
   Keywords||Reopened



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
preeny-0.1-3.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-2017-f9be6a6352

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1479022] Review Request: preeny - Some helpful preload libraries for pwning stuff

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479022



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
preeny-0.1-3.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-9f4ec77ae9

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1479022] Review Request: preeny - Some helpful preload libraries for pwning stuff

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479022

Jaroslav Škarvada  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2017-08-14 06:35:19



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1479022] Review Request: preeny - Some helpful preload libraries for pwning stuff

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479022



--- Comment #7 from Ralph Bean  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/preeny

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1479022] Review Request: preeny - Some helpful preload libraries for pwning stuff

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479022



--- Comment #6 from Ralph Bean  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/preeny

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1479022] Review Request: preeny - Some helpful preload libraries for pwning stuff

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479022



--- Comment #5 from Jaroslav Škarvada  ---
(In reply to Ondřej Lysoněk from comment #4)
Thanks for the review.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1479022] Review Request: preeny - Some helpful preload libraries for pwning stuff

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479022

Ondřej Lysoněk  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Ondřej Lysoněk  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- Group: tag should not be present
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections)

= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: 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]: 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: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 23 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/olysonek/preeny-2/1479022-preeny/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.
[-]: 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 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.
[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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in preeny-
 debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file 

[Bug 1479022] Review Request: preeny - Some helpful preload libraries for pwning stuff

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479022



--- Comment #3 from Jaroslav Škarvada  ---
(In reply to Ye Cheng from comment #1)
> (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #0)
> 
> This is an unofficial review.
> 
> Issues:
> ===
> - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
>   are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
>   Note: These BR are not needed: coreutils gcc make
>   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
False positives according to current rules all requirements has to be listed.

> - Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/preeny
Fixed

> Please add %{_libdir}/%{name} to /etc/ld.so.conf.d/ (and run ldconfig) if it
> is intended for ld to find the installed libraries.
It's not intended, it's meant to be used by LD_PRELOAD

> - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
>  Note : %{?__global_ldflags} Linker flag relro and now may alter the
> behaviour of the application being debugged but now linker flag could
> potentially help to reveal the issue earlier. Addition of
> LDFLAGS="%{?__global_ldflags}" doesn't break the compilation.
Fixed

> - %check is present and all tests pass.
> Upstream shipped 3 tests in /tests directory.
They are not tests, but more like examples, i.e. there is no test/check rule in
the Makefiles, it can just compile the sources in the tests directory, some
test logic has to be written. Also I think this "examples" are useless for
regular user, thus not including them.

> - Requires correct, justified where necessary.
> libini_config is required (but not listed) at runtime. 
This was caused by wrong build procedure, it should be fixed now and all
runtime deps coulb be automatically picked by rpmbuild.

New version:
Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/preeny/preeny.spec
SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/preeny/preeny-0.1-2.fc25.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1479022] Review Request: preeny - Some helpful preload libraries for pwning stuff

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479022



--- Comment #2 from Jaroslav Škarvada  ---
(In reply to Ye Cheng from comment #1)
Thanks, I am going to address the problems in next version.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1479022] Review Request: preeny - Some helpful preload libraries for pwning stuff

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479022

Ondřej Lysoněk  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||olyso...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|olyso...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1479022] Review Request: preeny - Some helpful preload libraries for pwning stuff

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479022

Ye Cheng <18969068...@163.com> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||18969068...@163.com



--- Comment #1 from Ye Cheng <18969068...@163.com> ---
(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #0)

This is an unofficial review.

Issues:
===
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
  are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: coreutils gcc make
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
- Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/preeny
The directory is supposed to be owned by this package.
Please add %{_libdir}/%{name} to /etc/ld.so.conf.d/ (and run ldconfig) if it is
intended for ld to find the installed libraries.
- %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
 Note : %{?__global_ldflags} Linker flag relro and now may alter the
behaviour of the application being debugged but now linker flag could
potentially help to reveal the issue earlier. Addition of
LDFLAGS="%{?__global_ldflags}" doesn't break the compilation.
- %check is present and all tests pass.
Upstream shipped 3 tests in /tests directory.
- Requires correct, justified where necessary.
libini_config is required (but not listed) at runtime. 

= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[!]: 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.
Please ignore this, because it will be quite tedious for user to type the full
versioned soname and parallel installation of multiple version will be rare.
The missing soname will unlikely become a issue because this library can be
linked manually by path.
[-]: 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: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 23 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 ~/1479022-preeny/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/preeny
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/preeny
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
 Note : global_ldflags not honored.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[?]: 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 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