Bug#803620: RFS: afl-cov/0.3-1 [ITP] -- code coverage for afl

[Daniel Stender]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
Control: block 796821 by -1

Hello,

I'm looking for a sponsor for my new package of afl-cov [1], a little tool
which is build around gcov to add code coverage monitoring to the fuzzing
(brute force vulnerability detection) of afl (American Fuzzy Lop).

I have a buildlog here:
http://www.danielstender.com/buildlogs/afl-cov_0.3-1_amd64-20151101-0153.build

And a mentors upload prepared:
http://mentors.debian.net/package/afl-cov
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/afl-cov/afl-cov_0.3-1.dsc

Thank you very much for consideration,
Daniel Stender

[1] https://github.com/mrash/afl-cov

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

Control: owner -1 !
Control: tags -1 moreinfo

Hi Daniel!

quick review:
1) debian/patches/correct-fsf-address...
well, I usually don't ask to change the address but to forward a patch upstream instead.

Doing both is for sure really nice

2) you changed to subprocess32, this is nice, but can you please provide a rationale for it?

better subprocess handling? why you didn't forward the patch upstream?
I'm asking because such Debian delta usually might introduce downstream problems :)


3) and now the important part, the reason for the moreinfo tag:

are you sure about the license?

I am not :p


cheers!

G.

[Daniel Stender]

Thanks for picking this up!

Post by Gianfranco Costamagna
1) debian/patches/correct-fsf-address...
well, I usually don't ask to change the address but to forward a patch upstream instead.
Doing both is for sure really nice

... in the case some day somebody really writes a letter requesting a copy of the license :-)

Post by Gianfranco Costamagna
2) you changed to subprocess32, this is nice, but can you please provide a rationale for it?
better subprocess handling? why you didn't forward the patch upstream?
I'm asking because such Debian delta usually might introduce downstream problems :)

The patch header is a little sparsely, I've added some info.

I don't wanted to add this change to the other things in the pull request stack on
Github not to overload it, but I've now posted an issue on this (Forwarded updated).

Post by Gianfranco Costamagna
are you sure about the license?
I am not :p

... aaaah yes. Little pitfall: "or (at your option) any later version"! :-)

Mentors upload is updated, debdiff attached.

Best,
Daniel

[Daniel Stender]

... "import subprocess32" of course doesn't work but "import subprocess32 as subprocess". Fixed
it and refreshed the mentors upload.

Daniel

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Tue, 3 Nov 2015 14:45:00 +0000 (UTC)
with message-id <***@mail.yahoo.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#803620: RFS: afl-cov/0.3-1 [ITP] -- code coverage for afl
has caused the Debian Bug report #803620,
regarding RFS: afl-cov/0.3-1 [ITP] -- code coverage for afl
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ***@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)