Bug 2241725

Virtual device to test this tool can be created by hamlib package command:
https://www.mankier.com/1/rigctlcom

(In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #1)
> Virtual device to test this tool can be created by hamlib package command:
> https://www.mankier.com/1/rigctlcom

It seems it can be tested even more simple way - hamlib has special dummy device for emulation. It would be good to have it as a Beaker test in Fedora CI :) Instructions how to test:

Create emulated radio 1 on port 8881:
$ rigctld -m 1 -t 8881

Create emulated radio 2 on port 8882:
$ rigctld -m 1 -t 8882

Enable radio synchronization via rigsync:
$ rigsync -m 2 -r localhost:8881 -m 2 -r localhost:8882

Now check the frequency of the second radio:
$ rigctl -m 2 -r localhost:8882 f
145000000

After startup it should be probably on 145 MHz.

Now retune the first radio to the 146 MHz:
$ rigctl -m 2 -r localhost:8881 F 146000000

And check the second radio that it followed and also retuned to the 146 MHz:
$ rigctl -m 2 -r localhost:8882 f
146000000

The synchronization should work both way and even with more radios. You can e.g. define three or four emulated radios or arbitrary number. You can also try with more frequencies and also check that the synchronization doesn't work if the rigsync isn't running.

Approved and writing the Beaker test.


Package Review
==============

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



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

C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     Note: Sources not installed
[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.
[-]: 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 Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Library
     General Public License v2 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser
     General Public License". Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/pavol/fedora/2241725-rigsync/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.
[-]: 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]: 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 3882 bytes in 1 files.
[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.
[-]: 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]: 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: rigsync-0~20230612gitb320c4d9-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          rigsync-debuginfo-0~20230612gitb320c4d9-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          rigsync-debugsource-0~20230612gitb320c4d9-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          rigsync-0~20230612gitb320c4d9-1.fc40.src.rpm
=========================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ===========================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmp1kkh0pvn')]
checks: 31, packages: 4

rigsync.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rigsync
rigsync.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary Rigsync
rigsync.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary Rigsync
rigsync.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-20230612gitb320c4d9-1 ['0~20230612gitb320c4d9-1.fc40', '0~20230612gitb320c4d9-1']
============================================================================ 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ============================================================================




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: rigsync-debuginfo-0~20230612gitb320c4d9-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
=========================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ===========================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmps42ax9w3')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

============================================================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ============================================================================





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
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
checks: 31, packages: 3

rigsync.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rigsync
rigsync.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary Rigsync
rigsync.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-20230612gitb320c4d9-1 ['0~20230612gitb320c4d9-1.fc40', '0~20230612gitb320c4d9-1']
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/daveriesz/rigsync/archive/b320c4d9a3ced9529391ac969cc29ff63f1c523a/rigsync-20230612gitb320c4d9.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 5a1f859fbca03bfd429d0dc08492d8a6b47563288f91a6c0582774be7992c455
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5a1f859fbca03bfd429d0dc08492d8a6b47563288f91a6c0582774be7992c455


Requires
--------
rigsync (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libhamlib.so.4()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

rigsync-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

rigsync-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
rigsync:
    rigsync
    rigsync(x86-64)

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

rigsync-debugsource:
    rigsync-debugsource
    rigsync-debugsource(x86-64)

Thanks for the review.

Btw to check whether the package builds on all supported architectures:
- navigate to the directory with spec and sources
- run:
$ fedpkg --release f40 scratch-build --srpm
- and observe the koji results

Taking the review

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rigsync

FEDORA-2023-046419be4b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-046419be4b

FEDORA-2023-30196c5a90 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-30196c5a90

FEDORA-2023-80578e0160 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-80578e0160

(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #4)
> Thanks for the review.
> 
> Btw to check whether the package builds on all supported architectures:
> - navigate to the directory with spec and sources
> - run:
> $ fedpkg --release f40 scratch-build --srpm
> - and observe the koji results

I doubt users not yet in packagers groups are allowed koji build, even a scratch one.

FEDORA-2023-046419be4b has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-046419be4b \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-046419be4b

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

FEDORA-2023-30196c5a90 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-30196c5a90 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-30196c5a90

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

FEDORA-2023-80578e0160 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-80578e0160 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-80578e0160

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

FEDORA-2023-80578e0160 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-30196c5a90 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-046419be4b has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.