https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2073196
Bug ID: 2073196 Summary: Review Request: rtl-433 - Generic radio data receiver Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: zonexpertconsulting@outlook.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/knight-of-ni/specfiles/master/rtl-433.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/rtl-433/fedora-36-x86...
Description: rtl_433 (despite the name) is a generic data receiver, mainly for the 433.92 MHz, 868 MHz (SRD), 315 MHz, and 915 MHz ISM bands.
Fedora Account System Username: kni
Comments: The official github project name is "rtl_433" with an underscore. I have changed the package name to "rtl-433", but I left the underscores in the binary name and the similarly named folder owned by the package. I'd be willing to change that if the reviewer can make a convincing argument.
Initial plan is to build only for Fedora. SoapySDR and rtl-sdr dependencies are not in EPEL at the moment. I am working to change that.
No Complaints from Rpmlint:
$ rpmlint rtl-433-21.12-1.20220401git8228f0d.fc35.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: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
$ rpmlint rtl-433-21.12-1.20220401git8228f0d.fc35.x86_64.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: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.1 s
$ rpmlint rtl-433-devel-21.12-1.20220401git8228f0d.fc35.x86_64.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: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2073196
Andrew Bauer zonexpertconsulting@outlook.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Bauer zonexpertconsulting@outlook.com --- Dependent package libusb has been obsoleted by libusb-compat-0.1 on f37 and newer.
Updated SPEC URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/knight-of-ni/specfiles/master/rtl-433.spec
Updated SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/rtl-433/fedora-rawhid...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2073196
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Bauer zonexpertconsulting@outlook.com --- UPDATE
- use install rather than cp - commenting out some of the config options made more sensible defaults on my system
Updated SPEC URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/knight-of-ni/specfiles/master/rtl-433.spec
Updated SRM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/rtl-433/fedora-rawhid...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2073196
Steven Pritchard steve@silug.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |steve@silug.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |steve@silug.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2073196
Steven Pritchard steve@silug.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Steven Pritchard steve@silug.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. - 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. Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "Boost Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]". 113 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/steve/src/fedora/2073196-rtl-433/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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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 337920 bytes in 64 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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: [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/merbanan/rtl_433/archive/8228f0d4819bb07146b421cce3b535bd... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ffb4cea4bd42e7acd720bc9972a229b46c21430f4708e980786e98b76f0cdecf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ffb4cea4bd42e7acd720bc9972a229b46c21430f4708e980786e98b76f0cdecf
Requires -------- rtl-433 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(rtl-433) libSoapySDR.so.0.8()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) librtlsdr.so.0()(64bit) libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
rtl-433-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rtl-433(x86-64)
rtl-433-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
rtl-433-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- rtl-433: config(rtl-433) rtl-433 rtl-433(x86-64)
rtl-433-devel: rtl-433-devel rtl-433-devel(x86-64)
rtl-433-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) rtl-433-debuginfo rtl-433-debuginfo(x86-64)
rtl-433-debugsource: rtl-433-debugsource rtl-433-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2073196 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Python, fonts, Perl, Ocaml, Java, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2073196
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Bauer zonexpertconsulting@outlook.com --- Thanks Steve, for the feedback. - Added COPYING to %license - Added %ctest suite to %check
Updated SPEC URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/knight-of-ni/specfiles/master/rtl-433.spec
Updated SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/rtl-433/fedora-rawhid...
fedpkg repo request has been sent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2073196
--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rtl-433
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2073196
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-24f62591a5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-24f62591a5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2073196
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-9b735d5973 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9b735d5973
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2073196
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-2f7e10f344 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2f7e10f344
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2073196
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-59f403da04 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-59f403da04
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2073196
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a94c6550d6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a94c6550d6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2073196
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-24f62591a5 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-24f62591a5 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-24f62591a5
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=2073196
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a94c6550d6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a94c6550d6
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=2073196
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-59f403da04 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-59f403da04
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=2073196
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-2f7e10f344 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-2f7e10f344 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2f7e10f344
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=2073196
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-9b735d5973 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-9b735d5973 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9b735d5973
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=2073196
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-04-28 05:50:19
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-9b735d5973 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2073196
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-2f7e10f344 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2073196
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a94c6550d6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2073196
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-59f403da04 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2073196
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-24f62591a5 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com