Bug 2310612
| Summary: | Review Request: gr-satellites - add gnuradio based satellite decoder to fedora | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Martin Hübner <martin.hubner> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | benson_muite, bruno.thomsen, code, loganjerry, package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | AutomationTriaged |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| URL: | https://gr-satellites.readthedocs.io | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | --- | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2026-06-23 18:48:16 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Martin Hübner
2024-09-07 13:08:53 UTC
Hello there, this is my first contribution to the fedora project. According to this guide: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/New_Package_Process_for_New_Contributors/#create_your_review_request I apparently need a sponsor (not sure, what that means exactly though). The mentioned specfile builds on copr for all fedora versions and architectures I tested for: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mhuebner/gr-satellites/build/7991272/ I would love to have gr-satellites added to fedora. This would facilitate the installation tremendously, as it is currently only available from source. Bests, mhuebner [fedora-review-service-build] --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mhuebner/gr-satellites/fedora-42-x86_64/08747957-gr-satellites/gr-satellites.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mhuebner/gr-satellites/fedora-42-x86_64/08747957-gr-satellites/gr-satellites-5.7.0-1.fc42.src.rpm Mock review Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages - Missing empty line between Summary and Requires in %package devel - Packaged version is 5.7.0 so remove "repair wrong line endings, merged upstream already. Will be obsolete with versions after 5.6.0" workaround. - Don't wildcard install shared libraries as that hides bumps in SONAME. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files - License looks okay, SPDX file tag list GPL-3.0-or-later 433 times and GPL-3.0 9 times. - Package does not own all used directories https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectories/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: 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. [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]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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 v3.0 or later [generated file]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "Apache License 2.0 and/or GNU General Public License, Version 3 and/or GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1 and/or MIT License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "MIT License", "GNU Lesser General Public License", "Apache License 2.0", "GNU General Public License, Version 3 and/or MIT License", "GNU General Public License, Version 3 [generated file]", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 698 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/gr- satellites/licensecheck.txt [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/satellites, /usr/lib64/cmake/satellites, /usr/lib64/python3.13/site- packages/satellites [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site- packages, /usr/lib64/cmake/satellites, /usr/include/satellites, /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/satellites, /usr/lib64/python3.13 [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 11694 bytes in 2 files. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gr-satellites-5.7.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm gr-satellites-devel-5.7.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm gr-satellites-5.7.0-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmph0dbso5r')] checks: 32, packages: 3 gr-satellites.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libgnuradio-satellites.so 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 143 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.6 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: gr-satellites-debuginfo-5.7.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpd0ej59k8')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "gr-satellites-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "gr-satellites-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "gr-satellites". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 3 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- gr-satellites: /usr/lib64/libgnuradio-satellites.so gr-satellites: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/satellites/satellites_python.cpython-313-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/daniestevez/gr-satellites/archive/refs/tags/v5.7.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6f186e4ea959c212b9df255de2b6d2db3ed0c68453c6792c74886ed0ad9b5ce4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6f186e4ea959c212b9df255de2b6d2db3ed0c68453c6792c74886ed0ad9b5ce4 Requires -------- gr-satellites (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 cmake-filesystem(x86-64) gnuradio libc.so.6()(64bit) libfmt.so.11()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgnuradio-blocks.so.3.10.11()(64bit) libgnuradio-pmt.so.3.10.11()(64bit) libgnuradio-runtime.so.3.10.11()(64bit) libgnuradio-satellites.so.5.7.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libspdlog.so.1.15()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libvolk.so.3.1()(64bit) python(abi) python3-construct python3-requests python3-websocket-client rtld(GNU_HASH) gr-satellites-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 cmake-filesystem(x86-64) gnuradio-devel gr-satellites(x86-64) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgnuradio-blocks.so.3.10.11()(64bit) libgnuradio-pmt.so.3.10.11()(64bit) libgnuradio-runtime.so.3.10.11()(64bit) libgnuradio-satellites.so.5.7.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) python(abi) python3-construct python3-requests python3-websocket-client rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- gr-satellites: cmake(gnuradio-satellites) cmake(satellites) gr-satellites gr-satellites(x86-64) libgnuradio-satellites.so.5.7.0()(64bit) gr-satellites-devel: cmake(gnuradio-satellites) cmake(satellites) gr-satellites-devel gr-satellites-devel(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name gr-satellites --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-42-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, Ocaml, Java, R, Perl, SugarActivity, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Hello, I do realize that this is possibly an old ticket. I am sorry that it hasn't been reviewed yet. Let me trigger the Fedora Review Service to see if the package builds successfully. Hopefully, a green check mark will attract some reviewer. If I am resurrecting an old ticket that you are not interested in anymore, my apologies, feel free to close it. [fedora-review-service-build] There seems to be some problem with the following file. SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mhuebner/gr-satellites/fedora-42-x86_64/08747957-gr-satellites/gr-satellites-5.7.0-1.fc42.src.rpm Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error. Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string. [fedora-review-service-build] --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mhuebner/gr-satellites/fedora-43-x86_64/09851454-gr-satellites/gr-satellites.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mhuebner/gr-satellites/fedora-43-x86_64/09851454-gr-satellites/gr-satellites-5.8.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9851736 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2310612-gr-satellites/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09851736-gr-satellites/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string. spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mhuebner/gr-satellites/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09908200-gr-satellites/gr-satellites.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mhuebner/gr-satellites/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09908200-gr-satellites/gr-satellites-5.9.0-1.fc44.src.rpm Please add `ExcludeArch: %{ix86}` to the spec file. I am in the midst of trying to convince gnuradio package maintainers to stop building for 32-bit x86.
Are you still working on this? Thanks! Hi Ben, not actively working on this one, but still using it personally everyday. Honestly, I don't plan on bringing this upstream anymore. I found contributing to Fedora to be utterly challenging and unnecessarily bureaucratic. Sorry to say that, but did you hear of things like git repositories and merge requests? I wrote convenient shell scripts to keep my copr up-to-date with minimal effort. But besides that, I don't plan on contributing packages anymore. Compared to other distros I contributed, fedora showed a quite complex process. :( Best wishes, Martin (In reply to Martin Hübner from comment #11) > Honestly, I don't plan on bringing this upstream anymore. I found > contributing to Fedora to be utterly challenging and unnecessarily > bureaucratic. Hmm, I’m sorry to hear that the process has been unpleasant. > Sorry to say that, but did you hear of things like git > repositories and merge requests? Git repositories and merge requests are exactly how we maintain packages once they’ve been introduced to Fedora. There are certainly still some aspects that are more fiddly and manual than they should be. Anyway, based on your comment, and without judgement one way or the other, I’m going to go ahead and close this review. Feel free to reopen the review or start a new one if you change your mind. |