[Bug 1945159] New: Review Request: rizin - reverse engineering framework, fork of radare2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1945159
Bug ID: 1945159 Summary: Review Request: rizin - reverse engineering framework, fork of radare2 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rschirone91@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ret2libc/rizin-specs-fedora/master/rizin.s... SRPM URL: https://github.com/ret2libc/rizin-specs-fedora/raw/master/rizin-0.1.2-1.fc33...
Description: Rizin is a free and open-source Reverse Engineering framework, providing a complete binary analysis experience with features like Disassembler, Hexadecimal editor, Emulation, Binary inspection, Debugger, and more.
Rizin is a fork of radare2 with a focus on usability, working features and code cleanliness.
Fedora Account System Username: ret2libc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1945159
Riccardo Schirone rschirone91@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Riccardo Schirone rschirone91@gmail.com --- For the licenses part, with the new release 0.2.0 that is probably going out quite soon, we have switched almost all files to SPDX and I'll be able to generate better reports which specify how each file is licensed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1945159
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zbyszek@in.waw.pl
--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- (In reply to Riccardo Schirone from comment #1)
For the licenses part, with the new release 0.2.0 that is probably going out quite soon, we have switched almost all files to SPDX and I'll be able to generate better reports which specify how each file is licensed.
Maybe try https://github.com/keszybz/repo-license-summary and tell me if it works for you\ (a shameless plug).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1945159
--- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- License: LGPLv3+ and GPLv2+ and BSD and MIT and ASL 2.0 and MPLv2.0 and zlib # Rizin as a package is targeting to be licensed/compiled as LGPLv3+ # however during build for Fedora the GPL code is not omitted so effectively it # is GPLv2+.
Please be aware that the License field describes the binary package, not the sources [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#Does_the_License:_tag_cover_the...]. And if sources with "permissive" licenses are mixed with GPL in a single binary, then the effective license is most likely GPLv2. So maybe this license list can be simplified?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1945159
Mamoru TASAKA mtasaka@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1929231
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1929231 [Bug 1929231] F34FailsToInstall: cutter-re
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1945159
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zbyszek@in.waw.pl Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- + package name is OK + license is acceptable (a mix, as discussed above) ? license is specified correctly:
Not sure about this one. As mentioned above, I strongly suspect it can be simplified. Over-specifying the license is not a very big issue… If it's the last issue remaining, I think we can proceed with the package, and maybe fix that later.
+ builds and installs correctly + fedora-review doesn't find any issues + R/P/BR look correct
Specifying all the versions of the bundled provides is the righteous thing to do, and what the guidelines recommend. Nevertheless, with some many items, keeping this updated is going to be chore. Additional motivation to unbundle ;)
rpmlint: rizin.src:120: W: setup-not-quiet Oh, you need -q so that a list of files is not printed. Seems reasonable to add that.
rizin.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/librz_core.so.0.1.2 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 rizin.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/librz_crypto.so.0.1.2 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 rizin.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/librz_egg.so.0.1.2 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 rizin.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/librz_main.so.0.1.2 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 rizin.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/librz_socket.so.0.1.2 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 Libraries should not called exit… Unless it's a false positive, seems like an upstream bug.
rizin.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rz-sign rizin-common.noarch: W: no-documentation rizin-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
In -devel, files are under /usr/include/librz/. And in general, everything is either in private directories or namespaced under "rz_" / "rz-" / "librz_", so there should be no conflicts.
Package is APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1945159
--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rizin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1945159
Mamoru TASAKA mtasaka@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2021-05-04 14:33:11
--- Comment #6 from Mamoru TASAKA mtasaka@fedoraproject.org --- This package is already in distribution.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com