Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1166752 - Review Request: liblightgrep - Not the worst forensics regexp engine
Summary: Review Request: liblightgrep - Not the worst forensics regexp engine
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-NEEDSPONSOR FE-DEADREVIEW
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-11-21 16:04 UTC by Joel Uckelman
Modified: 2020-08-10 00:50 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-08-10 00:50:22 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Joel Uckelman 2014-11-21 16:04:23 UTC 
Spec URL: https://uckelman.fedorapeople.org/liblightgrep.spec
          https://uckelman.fedorapeople.org/mingw-liblightgrep.spec
SRPM URL: https://uckelman.fedorapeople.org/liblightgrep-1.4.1-1.fc20.src.rpm
          https://uckelman.fedorapeople.org/mingw-liblightgrep-1.4.1-1.fc20.src.rpm
Description: 

I've packaged liblightgrep, a parallel multipattern, multiencoding regex search engine designed for applications in digital forensics. I am the upstream maintainer. This is my first package, so I need a sponsor.

%description:
Lightgrep is a new regular expression engine, designed specifically for
digital forensics. Why another regexp engine?

Lightgrep:
 * searches for many patterns simultaneously
 * searches binary data as a stream, not as discrete lines of text
 * searches for patterns in many different encodings; give it dirty data,
   lightgrep don't care
 * never, ever, ever, never, never looks at a byte twice or backs up in your
   input

Lightgrep is still pretty new and doesn't have all the regexp features you
might be used to. But it has enough features to be more than a toy, and what
is supported is well-tested.


Fedora Account System Username: uckelman
Comment 1 Michael Schwendt 2015-01-17 14:08:47 UTC 
One src.rpm/spec per review ticket, please.

That would also make it trivial to point the optional fedora-review tool at this ticket: fedora-review -b 1166752

It evaluates the "Spec URL:" and "SRPM URL:" lines, downloads the latest files, builds test-packages and runs lots of checks on them. Not limited to rpmlint. Give it a try yourself.


> Summary:        Not the worst forensics regexp engine

Funny. :)   Not everyone's cup of tea, though as a caveat.


> Name:           liblightgrep
> Group:          Development/Libraries

The Group tag for runtime library base packages has been "System Environment/Libraries" for many years. Nowadays, the tag is optional for most target dists:

  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag


> %package        devel

Only if you want/need the Group tag, for this subpackage it would be "Development/Libraries". ;-)


> # FIXME: force -O3?
> %configure --enable-shared --disable-static

An answer to that question may be found here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags


> %files devel
> %doc

An empty %doc does nothing and may be deleted safely (-> no side-effects!).

%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/lightgrep.pc



> Length: 155523804 (148M) [application/x-rpm]

Does anything use this library API yet? An unused library alone isn't too useful.
Comment 2 Joel Uckelman 2015-03-26 15:18:18 UTC 
(In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #1)
> One src.rpm/spec per review ticket, please.

Should I open a new ticket for the mingw package, then?
 
> That would also make it trivial to point the optional fedora-review tool at
> this ticket: fedora-review -b 1166752
> 
> It evaluates the "Spec URL:" and "SRPM URL:" lines, downloads the latest
> files, builds test-packages and runs lots of checks on them. Not limited to
> rpmlint. Give it a try yourself.
> 
> 
> > Summary:        Not the worst forensics regexp engine
> 
> Funny. :)   Not everyone's cup of tea, though as a caveat.
> 
> 
> > Name:           liblightgrep
> > Group:          Development/Libraries
> 
> The Group tag for runtime library base packages has been "System
> Environment/Libraries" for many years. Nowadays, the tag is optional for
> most target dists:
> 
>   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag
> 

Fixed.
 
> > %package        devel
> 
> Only if you want/need the Group tag, for this subpackage it would be
> "Development/Libraries". ;-)

Fixed.
 
> > # FIXME: force -O3?
> > %configure --enable-shared --disable-static
> 
> An answer to that question may be found here:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags

I believe I can provide benchmarks showing that -O3 makes a difference here for our library. I'll return with those later.
 
> 
> > %files devel
> > %doc
> 
> An empty %doc does nothing and may be deleted safely (-> no side-effects!).

Fixed.
 
> %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/lightgrep.pc

Was there a comment associated with this that got cut off?
   
> > Length: 155523804 (148M) [application/x-rpm]

This made me notice that we're packaging a lot of test data which we don't need to be---the source package should be about 1/10 the size once I've fixed that.

> Does anything use this library API yet? An unused library alone isn't too
> useful.

Yes. The big thing is bulk_extractor, which is an open-source forensics toolkit:

http://www.forensicswiki.org/wiki/Bulk_extractor
Comment 3 Package Review 2020-07-10 00:51:01 UTC 
This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.
Comment 4 Package Review 2020-08-10 00:50:22 UTC 
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.