https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103
Bug ID: 1981103 Summary: Review Request: pihpsdr - Raspberry Pi standalone code for HPSDR Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jskarvad@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/pihpsdr/pihpsdr.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/pihpsdr/pihpsdr-2.0.0-0.120210711git3bc649... Description: Raspberry Pi standalone code for HPSDR (Protocol 1 and Protocol 2). Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103
Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1979403
--- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- This package requires wdsp (bug 1979403).
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1979403 [Bug 1979403] Review Request: wdsp - DSP library for LinHPSDR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103 Bug 1981103 depends on bug 1979403, which changed state.
Bug 1979403 Summary: Review Request: wdsp - DSP library for LinHPSDR https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1979403
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Please bump the release to 2.0.8-rc1
- There is a dot missing in your Release field after 0.1:
2.0.0-0.120210711git3bc64986
- Notify upstream about their use of an obsolete FSF address in their file headers. Correct address is now:
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA
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]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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. [x]: 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", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 63 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/pihpsdr/review-pihpsdr/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [x]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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]: 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: pihpsdr-2.0.0-0.120210711git3bc64986.fc36.x86_64.rpm pihpsdr-doc-2.0.0-0.120210711git3bc64986.fc36.noarch.rpm pihpsdr-debuginfo-2.0.0-0.120210711git3bc64986.fc36.x86_64.rpm pihpsdr-debugsource-2.0.0-0.120210711git3bc64986.fc36.x86_64.rpm pihpsdr-2.0.0-0.120210711git3bc64986.fc36.src.rpm ============================================================ rpmlint session starts ============================================================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 6
pihpsdr-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/pihpsdr-2.0.0-0.120210711git3bc64986.fc36.x86_64.debug pihpsdr-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/pihpsdr-2.0.0-0.120210711git3bc64986.fc36.x86_64.debug pihpsdr-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/pihpsdr-2.0.0-0.120210711git3bc64986.fc36.x86_64.debug pihpsdr-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/pihpsdr-2.0.0-0.120210711git3bc64986.fc36.x86_64.debug pihpsdr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pihpsdr pihpsdr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pihpsdr pihpsdr-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation pihpsdr-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation pihpsdr-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation pihpsdr-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation pihpsdr.src: E: multiple-specfiles pihpsdr.spec pihpsdr.spec pihpsdr-debugsource.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pihpsdr-2.0.0-0.120210711git3bc64986.fc36.x86_64/about_menu.c pihpsdr-debugsource.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pihpsdr-2.0.0-0.120210711git3bc64986.fc36.x86_64/about_menu.h pihpsdr-debugsource.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pihpsdr-2.0.0-0.120210711git3bc64986.fc36.x86_64/adc.h pihpsdr-debugsource.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pihpsdr-2.0.0-0.120210711git3bc64986.fc36.x86_64/agc_menu.c pihpsdr-debugsource.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pihpsdr-2.0.0-0.120210711git3bc64986.fc36.x86_64/agc_menu.h pihpsdr-debugsource.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pihpsdr-2.0.0-0.120210711git3bc64986.fc36.x86_64/ant_menu.c pihpsdr-debugsource.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pihpsdr-2.0.0-0.120210711git3bc64986.fc36.x86_64/ant_menu.h [snip] pihpsdr-debugsource.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pihpsdr-2.0.0-0.120210711git3bc64986.fc36.x86_64/zoompan.c pihpsdr-debugsource.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pihpsdr-2.0.0-0.120210711git3bc64986.fc36.x86_64/zoompan.h pihpsdr.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-0.1.20210710git742658a9 ['2.0.0-0.120210711git3bc64986.fc36', '2.0.0-0.120210711git3bc64986'] pihpsdr.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-0.1.20210710git742658a9 ['2.0.0-0.120210711git3bc64986.fc36', '2.0.0-0.120210711git3bc64986'] pihpsdr-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/f5/eb500d53c7463963cfbc64503b5520dba6284c ../../../.build-id/f5/eb500d53c7463963cfbc64503b5520dba6284c pihpsdr-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/f5/eb500d53c7463963cfbc64503b5520dba6284c ../../../.build-id/f5/eb500d53c7463963cfbc64503b5520dba6284c ========================== 10 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 257 errors, 12 warnings, 257 badness; has taken 6.9 s ==========================
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103
--- Comment #3 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- Sorry I missed the update.
Thanks for the review, new version: Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/pihpsdr/pihpsdr.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/pihpsdr/pihpsdr-2.0.8~rc1-1.fc35.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103
--- Comment #4 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- Regarding the FSF snail mail address: https://github.com/g0orx/pihpsdr/issues/176
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review
Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com has canceled Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org's request for Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com's needinfo: Bug 1981103: Review Request: pihpsdr - Raspberry Pi standalone code for HPSDR https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103
--- Comment #8 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- Yes, I am still interested to get it into Fedora.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103
Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(jskarvad@redhat.c | |om) |
--- Comment #8 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- Yes, I am still interested to get it into Fedora.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com