[Bug 756465] Review Request: usbsoftrock - Command line utility for interfacing with Si570 based SDR kits
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756465 Lucian Langa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-11-25 15:16:05 --- Comment #13 from Lucian Langa --- Thanks Volker! Closing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 756465] Review Request: usbsoftrock - Command line utility for interfacing with Si570 based SDR kits
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756465 --- Comment #12 from Volker Fröhlich --- Lucian, can we close this ticket? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 756465] Review Request: usbsoftrock - Command line utility for interfacing with Si570 based SDR kits
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756465 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 756465] Review Request: usbsoftrock - Command line utility for interfacing with Si570 based SDR kits
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756465 Lucian Langa changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Lucian Langa --- Thank you for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: usbsoftrock Short Description: Command line utility for interfacing with Si570 based SDR kits Owners: lucilanga Branches: f17 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 756465] Review Request: usbsoftrock - Command line utility for interfacing with Si570 based SDR kits
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756465
Volker Fröhlich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Volker Fröhlich ---
==APPROVED==
There are a couple of compiler warnings. Maybe you can sort them out together
with upstream.
The exclamation marks on the EPEL5 items only apply, if you don't go for EPEL5.
In that case, please resolve them.
Please rename the source file, as described in the comment below.
A little note on your changelog entry: My words are by no means the guidelines,
only a reviewer's notes.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST 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 %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"*No copyright* UNKNOWN", "*No copyright* GENERATED FILE", "GPL (v2 or
later)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
/home/makerpm/756465-usbsoftrock/licensecheck.txt
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[-]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does
[Bug 756465] Review Request: usbsoftrock - Command line utility for interfacing with Si570 based SDR kits
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756465 --- Comment #8 from Lucian Langa --- Indeed, this package is not a daemon and description was misleading. I slightly changed description and I've dropped the part about the daemon. Updated package: Spec URL: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/usbsoftrock.spec SRPM URL: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/usbsoftrock-1.0.2-4.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 756465] Review Request: usbsoftrock - Command line utility for interfacing with Si570 based SDR kits
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756465 Volker Fröhlich changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|volke...@gmx.at Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Volker Fröhlich --- chmod belongs in the prep section. The description is misleading, when it says "and can act as a daemon listening over UDP for control messages.". It is not really a daemon. README says "... I'm contemplating providing a background daemon version ...". As there is no forking, I suppose it is not a daemon. If it were, the package would also need systemd unit files. Other than that, we should be fine. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 756465] Review Request: usbsoftrock - Command line utility for interfacing with Si570 based SDR kits
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756465 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) changed: What|Removed |Added CC|kwiz...@gmail.com | Component|oyranos |Package Review Assignee|kwiz...@gmail.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 756465] Review Request: usbsoftrock - Command line utility for interfacing with Si570 based SDR kits
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756465 Lucian Langa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kwiz...@gmail.com Component|Package Review |oyranos Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kwiz...@gmail.com --- Comment #6 from Lucian Langa --- Updated package: Spec URL: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/usbsoftrock.spec SRPM URL: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/usbsoftrock-1.0.2-3.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 756465] Review Request: usbsoftrock - Command line utility for interfacing with Si570 based SDR kits
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756465 --- Comment #5 from Volker Fröhlich --- Lucian? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 756465] Review Request: usbsoftrock - Command line utility for interfacing with Si570 based SDR kits
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756465 --- Comment #4 from Volker Fröhlich --- I think the udev file should be installed in /lib/udev/rules.d. I'm not sure if you must require udev for the directory. The udev files don't seem to be considered configuration by any package I looked at. Please peek into this thread for details: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-October/158357.html The udev file references a group "plugdev", which doesn't exist. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 756465] Review Request: usbsoftrock - Command line utility for interfacing with Si570 based SDR kits
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756465 --- Comment #3 from Lucian Langa 2012-05-04 16:00:27 EDT --- Sorry for late response. I somehow missed your initial message and the second too. I've asked for clarification regarding the actual license version. Until than license has been changed to GPLv2+. Updated version of the files: Spec URL: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/usbsoftrock.spec SRPM URL: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/usbsoftrock-1.0.2-2.fc17.src.rpm I intend to build for EPEL5. Thank you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 756465] Review Request: usbsoftrock - Command line utility for interfacing with Si570 based SDR kits
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756465 --- Comment #2 from Volker Fröhlich 2012-04-10 17:54:20 EDT --- Are you still interested in this package, Lucian? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 756465] Review Request: usbsoftrock - Command line utility for interfacing with Si570 based SDR kits
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756465 Volker Fröhlich changed: What|Removed |Added CC||volke...@gmx.at --- Comment #1 from Volker Fröhlich 2011-12-09 08:05:06 EST --- Looking at the source code, the license is GPLv2+, not GPLv3+. I see they state GPLv3 on Google Code. Please ask for clarification. Please remove the empty lines at the bottom. If you don't want to package for EPEL 5, you can remove buildroot, clean section and the rm in the install section: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#BuildRoot_tag Defattr is no longer necessary. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
