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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103
Petr Dancak pdancak@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pdancak@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |pdancak@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103
Petr Dancak pdancak@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(jskarvad@redhat.c | |om)
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 #10 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- New version: Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/pihpsdr/pihpsdr.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/pihpsdr/pihpsdr-2.0.8~rc1%5e20241105git7ad...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/g0orx/%%7B | |name}
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8218189 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPLv2+'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- 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=1981103
Petr Dancak pdancak@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(jskarvad@redhat.c | |om)
--- Comment #12 from Petr Dancak pdancak@redhat.com --- Notes: The license is deprecated by this list of licenses: https://spdx.org/licenses/ RPMLINT failes for pihpsdr-debuginfo: "rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/pihpsdr-debuginfo-2.0.8~rc1^20241105git7ad62180-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm" failes, probably because of naming RPMLINT 2 errors for pihpsdr-doc When I tried to start the app it just shows blank window and errors like: Failed to open file “hpsdr.png”: No such file or directory
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPLv2+'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 - RPMLINT failes for pihpsdr-doc, pihpsdr-debuginfo
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [ ]: 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [!]: 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". 71 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/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. [ ]: 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 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 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]: 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 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 8764 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [X]: 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. [x]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: fail for pihpsdr-doc. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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: 1
pihpsdr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pihpsdr pihpsdr.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv2+
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/pihpsdr-debuginfo-2.0.8~rc1^20241105git7ad62180-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm (none): E: fatal error while reading RPMS/x86_64/pihpsdr-debuginfo-2.0.8~rc1^20241105git7ad62180-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm: 'utf-8' codec can't decode byte 0xe0 in position 444: invalid continuation byte
When I tried to rename the RPM: rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/pihpsdr-debuginfo-2.0.8.fc42.x86_64 =========================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =========================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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: 1
Rpmlint (installed packages) ----------------------------
rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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
pihpsdr-doc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('linhpsdr', 'Summary(en_US) linhpsdr -> linchpin') pihpsdr-doc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('linhpsdr', '%description -l en_US linhpsdr -> linchpin') pihpsdr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pihpsdr pihpsdr.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv2+ pihpsdr-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license GPLv2+ ====================================================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 8 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.3 s ======================================================================
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/g0orx/pihpsdr/archive/7ad62180e8073f7c243195a0ff8632bdfbd... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6cfc803d5251078c14682fddbe1ec3b7f2cd5c6dc5cc7c8d6062962b4520f83f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6cfc803d5251078c14682fddbe1ec3b7f2cd5c6dc5cc7c8d6062962b4520f83f
Requires -------- pihpsdr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libSoapySDR.so.0.8()(64bit) libasound.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpulse-mainloop-glib.so.0()(64bit) libpulse-mainloop-glib.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit) libpulse-simple.so.0()(64bit) libpulse-simple.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit) libpulse.so.0()(64bit) libpulse.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit) libwdsp.so.0.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
pihpsdr-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pihpsdr
pihpsdr-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
pihpsdr-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- pihpsdr: application() application(pihpsdr.desktop) pihpsdr pihpsdr(x86-64)
pihpsdr-doc: pihpsdr-doc
pihpsdr-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) pihpsdr-debuginfo pihpsdr-debuginfo(x86-64)
pihpsdr-debugsource: pihpsdr-debugsource pihpsdr-debugsource(x86-64)
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 #13 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- New version: Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/pihpsdr/pihpsdr.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/pihpsdr/pihpsdr-2.0.8~rc1%5e20241105git7ad...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2055984 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2055984&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8218189 to 8222360
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8222360 (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=1981103
Petr Dancak pdancak@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords|AutomationTriaged |
--- Comment #16 from Petr Dancak pdancak@redhat.com --- license identifier in spec file fixed, rpmlint -doc was false positive (I wasn't sure), rpmlint -debuginfo reported as rpmlint bug, rpmlint on pihpsdr shown spellcheck for ethernet -> Ethernet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103
--- Comment #17 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- Thanks Petr 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~rc1-3.fc42.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- There seems to be some problem with the following file. SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/pihpsdr/pihpsdr-2.0.8~rc1-3.fc42.src.rpm Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error. Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available.
--- 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=1981103
--- Comment #19 from Petr Dancak pdancak@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/pihpsdr/pihpsdr.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/pihpsdr/pihpsdr-2.0.8~rc1%5e20241105git7ad...
The link for SRPM didn't contain commit in name of the package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103
Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pemensik@redhat.com
--- Comment #20 from Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com --- I miss link to upstream issue for fixing .desktop file. I doubt any other distribution would accept icons loaded from absolute path to home. I guess some .in generator should be proposed, where we would fill more sane paths. Maybe with original defaults. And executable .desktop file seems wrong to me.
There is suspicious beep.c with LGPLv2+ license, but it does not seem to be used in binary build. License is correct therefore. pdancak did a good job overall. It is up to him to give review+ flag, I would think it is ready. But he forgot to set bug to assigned and set review? flag at least :)
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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [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". 71 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/1981103-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]: 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]: 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 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 8764 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: 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]: 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: 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: pihpsdr-2.0.8~rc1^20241105git7ad62180-3.fc42.x86_64.rpm pihpsdr-doc-2.0.8~rc1^20241105git7ad62180-3.fc42.noarch.rpm pihpsdr-debuginfo-2.0.8~rc1^20241105git7ad62180-3.fc42.x86_64.rpm pihpsdr-debugsource-2.0.8~rc1^20241105git7ad62180-3.fc42.x86_64.rpm pihpsdr-2.0.8~rc1^20241105git7ad62180-3.fc42.src.rpm ========================================================= rpmlint session starts ======================================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpujod7rij')] checks: 32, packages: 5
pihpsdr-doc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('linhpsdr', 'Summary(en_US) linhpsdr -> linchpin') pihpsdr-doc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('linhpsdr', '%description -l en_US linhpsdr -> linchpin') pihpsdr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pihpsdr =================== 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 154 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 3.4 s ==================
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: pihpsdr-debuginfo-2.0.8~rc1^20241105git7ad62180-3.fc42.x86_64.rpm ========================================================= rpmlint session starts ======================================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpxjeuj7me')] checks: 32, packages: 1
==================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ===================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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: 4
pihpsdr-doc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('linhpsdr', 'Summary(en_US) linhpsdr -> linchpin') pihpsdr-doc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('linhpsdr', '%description -l en_US linhpsdr -> linchpin') pihpsdr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pihpsdr 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 151 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/g0orx/pihpsdr/archive/7ad62180e8073f7c243195a0ff8632bdfbd... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6cfc803d5251078c14682fddbe1ec3b7f2cd5c6dc5cc7c8d6062962b4520f83f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6cfc803d5251078c14682fddbe1ec3b7f2cd5c6dc5cc7c8d6062962b4520f83f
Requires -------- pihpsdr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libSoapySDR.so.0.8()(64bit) libasound.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpulse-mainloop-glib.so.0()(64bit) libpulse-mainloop-glib.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit) libpulse-simple.so.0()(64bit) libpulse-simple.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit) libpulse.so.0()(64bit) libpulse.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit) libwdsp.so.0.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
pihpsdr-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pihpsdr
pihpsdr-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
pihpsdr-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- pihpsdr: application() application(pihpsdr.desktop) pihpsdr pihpsdr(x86-64)
pihpsdr-doc: pihpsdr-doc
pihpsdr-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) pihpsdr-debuginfo pihpsdr-debuginfo(x86-64)
pihpsdr-debugsource: pihpsdr-debugsource pihpsdr-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1981103 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, Java, Haskell, R, Ocaml, Python, PHP, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103
--- Comment #21 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- (In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #20)
I miss link to upstream issue for fixing .desktop file. I doubt any other distribution would accept icons loaded from absolute path to home. I guess some .in generator should be proposed, where we would fill more sane paths. Maybe with original defaults. And executable .desktop file seems wrong to me.
Sorry, I don't know what do you mean. Desktop file is in the dist-git not in the archive, it's content: [Desktop Entry] Version=1.0 Type=Application Terminal=false Exec=/usr/bin/pihpsdr Name=pihpsdr Icon=hpsdr_icon Categories=Network;HamRadio
I.e. no absolute path except executable which is probably OK.
In application the icon is loaded from the home dir (as originally intended by upstream) and if it fails it's loaded from the system path: /usr/share/pihpsdr/hpsdr.png
I don't have executable desktop file, in the RPM or after installation.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103
--- Comment #22 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/pihpsdr/pihpsdr.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/pihpsdr/pihpsdr-2.0.8~rc1%5e20241105git7ad...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2056692 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2056692&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8222360 to 8235816
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8235816 (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=1981103
--- Comment #25 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- @pdancak if there isn't anything missing, could you please give it fedora_review+ flag (according to the comment 20).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103
Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(pdancak@redhat.co | |m)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103
Petr Dancak pdancak@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |pdancak@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103
--- Comment #27 from Petr Dancak pdancak@redhat.com --- The package was updated on the Ethernet issue. Setting flag fedore_review+.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pihpsdr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-d757cdee62 (pihpsdr-2.0.8~rc1^20241105git7ad62180-4.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-d757cdee62
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-d757cdee62 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-d757cdee62 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-d757cdee62
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103
--- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-b8a072989f has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-b8a072989f` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-b8a072989f
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2025-01-16 01:59:20
--- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-b8a072989f (pihpsdr-2.0.8~rc1^20241105git7ad62180-6.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com