[Bug 2314288] New: Review Request: grepcidr3 - High performance search for IP addresses and CIDR ranges
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314288
Bug ID: 2314288 Summary: Review Request: grepcidr3 - High performance search for IP addresses and CIDR ranges Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/grepcidr3.spec SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/grepcidr3-3.0-1.src.rpm Description: The grepcidr3 utility can be used to filter a list of IP addresses against one or more Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) specifications, or also arbitrary networks specified by an address range. As with grep, there are options to invert matching and load patterns from a file. It is capable of comparing thousands or even millions of IPs to networks with little memory usage and in reasonable computation time.
Fedora Account System Username: robert
Note: grepcidr3 is a hard fork of grepcidr with incompatible command line options.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314288
Robert Scheck redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |job@sobornost.net Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314288
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged URL| |https://github.com/jrlevine | |/grepcidr3
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8062466 (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=2314288
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314288
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) |
--- Comment #3 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/grepcidr3/2314288- grepcidr3/licensecheck.txt [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: %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. [ ]: 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. [!]: 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 5567 bytes in 2 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). [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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: grepcidr3-3.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm grepcidr3-3.0-1.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/tmprrgv4anr')] checks: 32, packages: 2
grepcidr3.spec: W: no-%check-section grepcidr3.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/grepcidr3/COPYING 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: grepcidr3-debuginfo-3.0-1.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/tmp4il0ayfc')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 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: 2
grepcidr3.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/grepcidr3/COPYING 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jrlevine/grepcidr3/archive/v3.0/grepcidr3-3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b0640c5ed4d5f219f1c5c22d85964de4cfcd7a6b06d137fba830dc9331ecc90d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b0640c5ed4d5f219f1c5c22d85964de4cfcd7a6b06d137fba830dc9331ecc90d
Requires -------- grepcidr3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- grepcidr3: grepcidr3 grepcidr3(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2314288 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, Java, Ocaml, SugarActivity, R, PHP, Perl, Python, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Consider using %autorelease, %autochangelog and %autosetup macros b) Newest release is 3.0.3 please update c) Pull request to update address in COPYING file https://github.com/jrlevine/grepcidr3/pull/14 d) Please replace $RPM_BUILD_ROOT by %{buildroot} e) can tests be run? https://github.com/jrlevine/grepcidr3/tree/main/tests f) Is it possible to get clarification from the main developer on licensing? While GPL2-or-later is used for the man page, it is unclear if the code is also GPL-3.0-or-later AND BSD-2-Clause, just BSD-2-Clause or something else.
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org has canceled Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org's request for Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org's needinfo: Bug 2314288: Review Request: grepcidr3 - High performance search for IP addresses and CIDR ranges https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314288
--- Comment #3 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/grepcidr3/2314288- grepcidr3/licensecheck.txt [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: %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. [ ]: 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. [!]: 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 5567 bytes in 2 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). [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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: grepcidr3-3.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm grepcidr3-3.0-1.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/tmprrgv4anr')] checks: 32, packages: 2
grepcidr3.spec: W: no-%check-section grepcidr3.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/grepcidr3/COPYING 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: grepcidr3-debuginfo-3.0-1.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/tmp4il0ayfc')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 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: 2
grepcidr3.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/grepcidr3/COPYING 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jrlevine/grepcidr3/archive/v3.0/grepcidr3-3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b0640c5ed4d5f219f1c5c22d85964de4cfcd7a6b06d137fba830dc9331ecc90d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b0640c5ed4d5f219f1c5c22d85964de4cfcd7a6b06d137fba830dc9331ecc90d
Requires -------- grepcidr3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- grepcidr3: grepcidr3 grepcidr3(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2314288 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, Java, Ocaml, SugarActivity, R, PHP, Perl, Python, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Consider using %autorelease, %autochangelog and %autosetup macros b) Newest release is 3.0.3 please update c) Pull request to update address in COPYING file https://github.com/jrlevine/grepcidr3/pull/14 d) Please replace $RPM_BUILD_ROOT by %{buildroot} e) can tests be run? https://github.com/jrlevine/grepcidr3/tree/main/tests f) Is it possible to get clarification from the main developer on licensing? While GPL2-or-later is used for the man page, it is unclear if the code is also GPL-3.0-or-later AND BSD-2-Clause, just BSD-2-Clause or something else.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314288
--- Comment #4 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #3)
f) Is it possible to get clarification from the main developer on licensing? While GPL2-or-later is used for the man page, it is unclear if the code is also GPL-3.0-or-later AND BSD-2-Clause, just BSD-2-Clause or something else.
Aren't the two last lines of https://github.com/jrlevine/grepcidr3/blob/main/LICENSE already good enough?
Portions of the files grepcidr.c and grepcidr.1 copyright (C) 2004, 2005 Jem E. Berkes jberkes@pc-tools.net and may be subject to a GNU public license described in the file COPYING.
For me this translates to "BSD-2-Clause AND GPL-2.0-or-later" (because "grepcidr" by Jem E. Berkes is GPL-2.0-or-later). Or am I overlooking something?
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com