https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366506
Bug ID: 2366506 Summary: Review Request: lief - Library to Instrument Executable Formats Product: Fedora Version: rawhide URL: https://lief.re Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fedora@lecris.me QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/lief/lief.spec SRPM URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/lief/lief-0.16.5-1.fc43.src.rpm
Description: The purpose of this project is to provide a cross-platform library to parse, modify and abstract ELF, PE and MachO formats.
Fedora Account System Username: lecris
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=132773120
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366506
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9050195 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366506
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org
--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- The first part of the soname should not be globbed https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shared_libraries
Can tcb-span be packaged instead of bundled: https://github.com/tcbrindle/span
Can documentation be generated? https://github.com/lief-project/LIEF/tree/main/doc Suggest using docbook or any other form that will not introduce javascript and additional fonts but will still be reasonably complete.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366506
Cristian Le fedora@lecris.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |2367753
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2367753 [Bug 2367753] Review Request: span - std::span implementation for C++11 and later
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366506
--- Comment #3 from Cristian Le fedora@lecris.me --- Spec URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/lief/lief.spec SRPM URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/lief/lief-0.16.5%5E20250521gitdc6646...
Unbundled `span` (see dependent bug), and added a soversion macro. About documentation though, I am reluctant to generate it because it does not have `man` or other artifacts that are usable by the system, and there may be unpackaged dependencies.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366506
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2091015 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2091015&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 9050195 to 9069433
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366506
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords|AutomationTriaged |
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9069433 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366506
--- Comment #6 from Cristian Le fedora@lecris.me --- Spec URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/lief/lief.spec SRPM URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/lief/lief-0.17.0~20250521gitdc66460-...
Version should have been 0.17.0 to match the library version. Using a pre-release indicator for the snapshot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366506
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2091016 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2091016&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 9069433 to 9069438
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366506
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9069438 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366506
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366506 Bug 2366506 depends on bug 2367753, which changed state.
Bug 2367753 Summary: Review Request: span - std::span implementation for C++11 and later https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2367753
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366506
--- Comment #9 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366506
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9092229 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366506
--- Comment #11 from Cristian Le fedora@lecris.me --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366506
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9103867 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366506
--- Comment #13 from Cristian Le fedora@lecris.me --- Spec URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/lief/lief.spec SRPM URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/lief/lief-0.17.0~20250730git971a8de-...
Bumped the commit to resolve the s390x issue
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=135536558
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366506
Cristian Le fedora@lecris.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org)
--- Comment #14 from Cristian Le fedora@lecris.me --- Hi Benson, do you still have time to look over this one?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366506
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) |
--- Comment #15 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- 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]: 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-Clause License", "Apache License 2.0". 1009 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/lief/2366506-lief/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 or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in lief- devel [ ]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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. [ ]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: lief-0.17.0~20250730git971a8de-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm lief-devel-0.17.0~20250730git971a8de-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm lief-0.17.0~20250730git971a8de-1.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmp070amh8z')] checks: 32, packages: 3
lief-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/include/LIEF/PE/enums.inc lief.x86_64: W: no-documentation lief-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 19 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 1.7 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: lief-debuginfo-0.17.0~20250730git971a8de-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpfxtruluy')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 3.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 3
lief-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/include/LIEF/PE/enums.inc lief-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation lief.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 20 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 1.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/lief-project/LIEF/archive/971a8deac4cfded62952b0a9b46e14c... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 88c3d7b0893e69845fe600a16ef3f22b89b7c70c73a8738b273802446c46cc4a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 88c3d7b0893e69845fe600a16ef3f22b89b7c70c73a8738b273802446c46cc4a
Requires -------- lief (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libfmt.so.11()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.4)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmbedcrypto.so.16()(64bit) libmbedx509.so.7()(64bit) libspdlog.so.1.15()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
lief-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libLIEF.so.0()(64bit) lief
Provides -------- lief: libLIEF.so.0()(64bit) lief lief(x86-64)
lief-devel: cmake(LIEF) cmake(lief) lief-devel lief-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(LIEF)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/lief/2366506-lief/srpm/lief.spec 2026-05-20 21:35:29.911804785 +0300 +++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/lief/2366506-lief/srpm-unpacked/lief.spec 2025-07-31 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.1) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + # Python API needs more work %bcond python 0 @@ -152,3 +162,6 @@
%changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Thu Jul 31 2025 John Doe packager@example.com - 0.17.0~20250730git971a8de-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec
Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2366506 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Perl, Java, Haskell, PHP, Python, SugarActivity, fonts, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Mostly seems ok. Can you try the latest release to see if tests can be run?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366506
--- Comment #16 from Cristian Le fedora@lecris.me --- Spec URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/lief/lief.spec SRPM URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/lief/lief-0.17.6-1.fc45.src.rpm
Update to 0.17.6
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=145716707
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366506
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2142221 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2142221&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 9103867 to 10492922
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366506
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10492922 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com