finlib

maintainer lenoch · 0 votes · scanned 2026-08-03 00:08:14.047287

LOW

Why flagged The source is a tarball from a plausible project-owned academic host (fi.muni.cz), building the project's own code; the non-whitelisted host is a university domain hosting legitimate research software, not a swappable file host, so risk is low despite the flag.

Triggered rules

LOW AI review downgraded a static finding llm_review

The static rules flagged this MEDIUM, but an AI model (qwen/qwen3-235b-a22b-07-25) reviewed the full PKGBUILD and judged it LOW (confidence 95%): The source is a tarball from a plausible project-owned academic host (fi.muni.cz), building the project's own code; the non-whitelisted host is a university domain hosting legitimate research software, not a swappable file host, so risk is low despite the flag.

1 higher static finding superseded - not the current verdict (shown for transparency)

MEDIUM source=() URL on a non-standard host source_untrusted_domain

One or more source=() URLs point to a host outside the trusted allowlist (github.com, gitlab.com, codeberg.org, pypi.org, …).

PKGBUILD:12 source=("http://corpora.fi.muni.cz/noske/src/$pkgname/$pkgname-$pkgver.tar.gz")

PKGBUILD

1 offending line(s) highlighted

      1# Maintainer: Ondřej Svoboda <ondrej@svobodasoft.cz>
    
      2pkgname=finlib
    
      3provides=(finlib)
    
      4conflicts=(finlib)
    
      5pkgver=2.36.5
    
      6pkgrel=1
    
      7arch=(x86_64)
    
      8url="https://nlp.fi.muni.cz/trac/noske"
    
      9pkgdesc="Fast indexing library for the Manatee corpus management tool (a part of NoSketch Engine)"
    
      10license=(GPL)
    
      11depends=(pcre)
    
      12source=("http://corpora.fi.muni.cz/noske/src/$pkgname/$pkgname-$pkgver.tar.gz")
    
      13sha256sums=('5a7914633676eb348b9ca6bf09dc0c78a5b8b4a97d280263f14f8c8140934452')
    
      14
    
      15build()
    
      16{
    
      17    cd "$srcdir/$pkgname-$pkgver"
    
      18    ./configure --prefix=/usr --with-pcre
    
      19    # TODO: are these two changes to libtool (removal of rpaths) necessary?
    
      20    # They were introduced to the RPM's specfile in release 2.11-1.
    
      21    # https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Removing_Rpath
    
      22    sed -i 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=.*|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=""|g' libtool
    
      23    sed -i 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' libtool
    
      24    make
    
      25}
    
      26
    
      27package()
    
      28{
    
      29    cd "$srcdir/$pkgname-$pkgver"
    
      30    make DESTDIR="$pkgdir" install
    
      31}
    
      32
    
      33# ldconfig is said to be run by pacman after installation:
    
      34# https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/35744
    
      35# https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=7808
    
      36

Scan history

Scanned at (UTC)	Severity	Rules
2026-08-03 00:08:14	LOW	2
2026-08-02 00:16:08	LOW	2
2026-08-01 00:11:18	LOW	2
2026-07-31 00:14:10	LOW	2
2026-07-30 00:17:23	LOW	2
2026-07-29 00:25:53	LOW	2
2026-07-28 00:07:28	LOW	2
2026-07-27 00:24:32	LOW	2
2026-07-26 00:07:32	LOW	2
2026-07-25 00:13:44	LOW	2
2026-07-24 00:02:28	LOW	2
2026-07-23 00:14:47	LOW	2
2026-07-22 00:29:32	LOW	2
2026-07-21 00:24:15	LOW	2
2026-07-20 00:19:49	LOW	2
2026-07-19 00:17:08	LOW	2
2026-07-18 00:14:48	LOW	2
2026-07-17 00:06:16	LOW	2
2026-07-16 00:05:41	LOW	2
2026-07-15 00:09:25	LOW	2