Bug 1614550

Summary: Review Request: liquid-dsp - Digital signal processing library for software-defined radios
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Matt Domsch <matt>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: package-review, zebob.m
Target Milestone: ---Flags: zebob.m: fedora-review+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2018-08-30 04:53:04 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 1614549    

Description Matt Domsch 2018-08-09 21:32:53 UTC
Spec URL: https://domsch.com/fedora/sdr/liquid-dsp.spec
SRPM URL: https://domsch.com/fedora/sdr/liquid-dsp-1.2.0-1.fc28.src.rpm
Description: Digital signal processing library for software-defined radios
Fedora Account System Username: mdomsch

Required by CubicSDR.

Comment 1 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2018-08-12 16:15:43 UTC
 - Same issue as before, why do you package a snapshot instead of the release

 - Also the latest release is 1.3.1

 - Not needed: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

 - %setup -n %{name}-%{commit}
%patch0 -p1
%patch1 -p1

   Just use:

%autosetup -p1 -n %{name}-%{commit}

 - Add a comment above each patch explaining why they are needed.

 - The %license LICENSE is not needed here as this subpackage depends already on the main one which includes the license.

%files -n %{name}-devel
%license LICENSE

Comment 2 Matt Domsch 2018-08-13 05:04:24 UTC
upstream has 136 commits since October 2017 release of 1.3.1.

Upstream never internally bumped their version number; it had 1.2.0 scattered all over the place. I've bumped that to 1.3.1 now in the patches being applied, including an autotools patch as upstream doesn't provide the files necessary to run configure in their tarball.

I've made the other changes as requested and reposted the SRPM and spec. Thank you for your review.

Comment 3 Matt Domsch 2018-08-14 04:33:29 UTC
All changes made as requested, packages and specs reposted at https://domsch.com/fedora/sdr/

Comment 4 Matt Domsch 2018-08-14 04:36:14 UTC
$ rpmlint *liquid*
liquid-dsp.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libliquid.so.1.3 exit.5  (this is filed as a bug upstream)
liquid-dsp.x86_64: W: no-documentation
liquid-dsp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

Comment 5 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2018-08-14 13:25:56 UTC
     Note: No known owner of /usr/include/liquid

Use %{_includedir}/liquid/ instead of %{_includedir}/liquid/* to own the dir.

Package otherwise approved. Just fix this issue before import.

Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

[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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "FSF All Permissive", "GPL (v3 or
     later)", "Unknown or generated". 235 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/liquid-
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/include/liquid
[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
[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]: 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]: 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
[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
[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 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[-]: 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.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in liquid-
     dsp-debuginfo , liquid-dsp-debugsource
[?]: 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
[-]: 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
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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 =====

[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.

Checking: liquid-dsp-1.3.1-1.20180806git9658d81.fc29.x86_64.rpm
liquid-dsp.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libliquid.so.1.3 exit.5
liquid-dsp.x86_64: W: no-documentation
liquid-dsp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2018-08-14 15:16:48 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/liquid-dsp

Comment 7 Matt Domsch 2018-08-15 02:50:04 UTC
I need some advice.  This fails to build for ppc64le as it requires gcc -faltivec, which apparently even rawhide gcc doesn't have.  Should I ExcludeArch this for ppc64le until upstream can address?  Upstream took a stab at it over a year ago in https://github.com/jgaeddert/liquid-dsp/issues/84 but our gcc doesn't have -faltivec.

Comment 8 Jason Tibbitts 2018-08-15 18:12:33 UTC
Certainly just add the ExcludeArch.  You should also open a bugzilla ticket against the package to explain the problem and have it block https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1071880 so that arch maintainers can (potentially) see it.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2018-08-16 13:44:25 UTC
CubicSDR-0.2.4-1.20180806gita7e4d91.fc28 liquid-dsp-1.3.1-3.20180806git9658d81.fc28 soapy-rtlsdr-0.2.5-1.fc28 SoapySDR-0.6.1-1.20180806gite694813.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b2b91c05b7

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2018-08-17 15:35:22 UTC
CubicSDR-0.2.4-1.20180806gita7e4d91.fc28, SoapySDR-0.6.1-1.20180806gite694813.fc28, liquid-dsp-1.3.1-3.20180806git9658d81.fc28, soapy-rtlsdr-0.2.5-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b2b91c05b7

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2018-08-30 04:53:04 UTC
CubicSDR-0.2.4-1.20180806gita7e4d91.fc28, SoapySDR-0.6.1-1.20180806gite694813.fc28, liquid-dsp-1.3.1-3.20180806git9658d81.fc28, soapy-rtlsdr-0.2.5-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.