Bug 1981048

This requires the wdsp package, bug 1979403.

First of all, I think somewhere it should explain what is this package for and what it does. For me, linhpsdr sounds almost like someone's cat walked over a keyboard and typed just random stuff. Please explain something about the package.

I think it should be clear to anyone interested whether he needs the package and what it might do. I understand this it for tech-friendly people, but even upstream does not care to explain what the project does and how it is used (in README). I think that should be improved both in package and upstream.

I think I am not the only one, who does not have any idea what might HPSDR stand for. Well, when this is linux application for that, it is not really helping. I expect it would not violate any trademark, if the package spends few more words to at least say: I am package for working with Software Defined Radio on linux. Just including abbreviation is not sufficient without any kind of category description.

I think desktop-file-validate should belong to %check section

Otherwise the package seems reasonable.

(In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #2)
> First of all, I think somewhere it should explain what is this package for
> and what it does. For me, linhpsdr sounds almost like someone's cat walked
> over a keyboard and typed just random stuff. Please explain something about
> the package.
> 
> I think it should be clear to anyone interested whether he needs the package
> and what it might do. I understand this it for tech-friendly people, but
> even upstream does not care to explain what the project does and how it is
> used (in README). I think that should be improved both in package and
> upstream.
> 
> I think I am not the only one, who does not have any idea what might HPSDR
> stand for. Well, when this is linux application for that, it is not really
> helping. I expect it would not violate any trademark, if the package spends
> few more words to at least say: I am package for working with Software
> Defined Radio on linux. Just including abbreviation is not sufficient
> without any kind of category description.
> 
> I think desktop-file-validate should belong to %check section
> 
> Otherwise the package seems reasonable.

Updated description:
Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/linhpsdr/linhpsdr.spec
SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/linhpsdr/linhpsdr-0-0.2.20210710git742658a9.fc33.src.rpm
Description: An HPSDR (High Performance Software Defined Radio) application for controlling
HPSDR compatible radios, e.g. Orion, Angelia, Hermes, ...
Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad

Much better, thank you. I would like word radio to appear also in Summary, but at least the user should be able to get idea what it is about. Maybe "High Performance SDR application for Linux" at least? But it is acceptable, the abbreviation is explained in description.

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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or
     later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 37
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/reviewer/fedora/rawhide/1981048-linhpsdr/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.
[x]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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 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]: 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).
[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.
[-]: 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: 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: linhpsdr-0-0.2.20210710git742658a9.fc36.x86_64.rpm
          linhpsdr-doc-0-0.2.20210710git742658a9.fc36.noarch.rpm
          linhpsdr-debuginfo-0-0.2.20210710git742658a9.fc36.x86_64.rpm
          linhpsdr-debugsource-0-0.2.20210710git742658a9.fc36.x86_64.rpm
          linhpsdr-0-0.2.20210710git742658a9.fc36.src.rpm
linhpsdr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary linhpsdr
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: linhpsdr-debuginfo-0-0.2.20210710git742658a9.fc36.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/g0orx/linhpsdr/archive/742658a9068392349ca1efc9d698dcaae541dda6/linhpsdr-20210710git742658a9.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 699979b0be9af7c4265ce3a31249063978f82f1d2bd74d28e2c3d43f8c7a1541
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 699979b0be9af7c4265ce3a31249063978f82f1d2bd74d28e2c3d43f8c7a1541


Requires
--------
linhpsdr (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)
    libcw.so.7()(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)
    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)
    libsoundio.so.2()(64bit)
    libwdsp.so.0.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

linhpsdr-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    linhpsdr

linhpsdr-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

linhpsdr-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
linhpsdr:
    application()
    application(linhpsdr.desktop)
    linhpsdr
    linhpsdr(x86-64)

linhpsdr-doc:
    linhpsdr-doc

linhpsdr-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    linhpsdr-debuginfo
    linhpsdr-debuginfo(x86-64)

linhpsdr-debugsource:
    linhpsdr-debugsource
    linhpsdr-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1981048
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, Perl, Ocaml, Python, SugarActivity, R, Haskell, fonts
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Haven't found anything else blocking review pass.

Thanks for the review.

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/linhpsdr

FEDORA-2021-31413eefda has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-31413eefda

FEDORA-2021-1313219a4e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1313219a4e

FEDORA-2021-3fa9ab2daa has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3fa9ab2daa

FEDORA-2021-31413eefda 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-2021-31413eefda \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-31413eefda

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2021-1313219a4e 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-2021-1313219a4e \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1313219a4e

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2021-3fa9ab2daa has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-3fa9ab2daa \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3fa9ab2daa

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2021-3fa9ab2daa has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2021-1313219a4e has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2021-31413eefda has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.