Bug 2320142

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8161953
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2320142-wfview/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08161953-wfview/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.

Tested in a fresh F39

Installs all package and are operational connecting to a wfview server running on other machine

perfect !

Thanks

I am not sure how wfserver should be used exactly. But if that is indeed a service, it should have either system or user systemd service packaged too. At least from its name it seems so.

It seems resampler/ contains similar header as speexdsp-devel-1.2.1-5.fc39.x86_64 package. Are they compatible?

Should be speexdsp be used during build and local copy deleted? At least resampler/COPYING contains outdated GNU Temple address. If it contains non-trivial local changes, it should be included in spec with Provides: bundled(speexdsp). Ideally with version of bundled copy, if known. I think issue should be created at upstream to try reuse system speexdsp library, if it has version high enough.

diff -u /usr/include/speex/speex_resampler.h resampler/speex_resampler.h showed just one blank line, they should be compatible.

Therefore package needs to be modified use speexdsp-devel from the system.

Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/wfview/wfview.spec
SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/wfview/wfview-1.64-2.fc42.src.rpm

I don't know whether the streaming works, I will test it during weekend. If it works, I will open upstream ticket to unbundle speexdsp, but it compiles at least.

Created attachment 2053574 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8161953 to 8173638

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8173638
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2320142-wfview/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08173638-wfview/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 URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/wfview/wfview.spec
SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/wfview/wfview-1.64-3.fc42.src.rpm

Tested and it works OK.

Created attachment 2054025 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8173638 to 8181805

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8181805
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2320142-wfview/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08181805-wfview/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.

There is already wfview review in bug #2295879. It might be better to work with previous author to create single package. Maybe with requesting commit rights to the package after it?

*** Bug 2295879 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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]: 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]: 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 General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or
     generated", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No
     copyright* GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "*No
     copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 71 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/1981103-pihpsdr/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.
[-]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 8764 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

Generic:
[x]: 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.
[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: pihpsdr-2.0.8~rc1^20241105git7ad62180-3.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          pihpsdr-doc-2.0.8~rc1^20241105git7ad62180-3.fc42.noarch.rpm
          pihpsdr-debuginfo-2.0.8~rc1^20241105git7ad62180-3.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          pihpsdr-debugsource-2.0.8~rc1^20241105git7ad62180-3.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          pihpsdr-2.0.8~rc1^20241105git7ad62180-3.fc42.src.rpm
========================================================= rpmlint session starts ========================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpujod7rij')]
checks: 32, packages: 5

pihpsdr-doc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('linhpsdr', 'Summary(en_US) linhpsdr -> linchpin')
pihpsdr-doc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('linhpsdr', '%description -l en_US linhpsdr -> linchpin')
pihpsdr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pihpsdr
=================== 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 154 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 3.4 s ==================




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: pihpsdr-debuginfo-2.0.8~rc1^20241105git7ad62180-3.fc42.x86_64.rpm
========================================================= rpmlint session starts ========================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpxjeuj7me')]
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)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
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: 4

pihpsdr-doc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('linhpsdr', 'Summary(en_US) linhpsdr -> linchpin')
pihpsdr-doc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('linhpsdr', '%description -l en_US linhpsdr -> linchpin')
pihpsdr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pihpsdr
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 151 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/g0orx/pihpsdr/archive/7ad62180e8073f7c243195a0ff8632bdfbdf3742/pihpsdr-7ad62180e8073f7c243195a0ff8632bdfbdf3742.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 6cfc803d5251078c14682fddbe1ec3b7f2cd5c6dc5cc7c8d6062962b4520f83f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6cfc803d5251078c14682fddbe1ec3b7f2cd5c6dc5cc7c8d6062962b4520f83f


Requires
--------
pihpsdr (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)
    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)
    libpango-1.0.so.0()(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)
    libwdsp.so.0.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

pihpsdr-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    pihpsdr

pihpsdr-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

pihpsdr-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



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

pihpsdr-doc:
    pihpsdr-doc

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

pihpsdr-debugsource:
    pihpsdr-debugsource
    pihpsdr-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1981103
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, Java, Haskell, R, Ocaml, Python, PHP, Perl
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Just a minor issue remains, that %check is not present. At least desktop-file-validate should be present in %check, not %install in my opinion.
It should contain also appstream-util validate-relax org.wfview.wfview.metainfo.xml for metainfo checking.

It seems metainfo file validation is not optional: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/#_app_data_validate_usage
Also basename of desktop file MUST match name of metainfo. This is not currently the case. Since I have already given review+, I am not going to revoke it again. Please fix AppData anyway.

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

(In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #14)
> Just a minor issue remains, that %check is not present. At least
> desktop-file-validate should be present in %check, not %install in my
> opinion.
> It should contain also appstream-util validate-relax
> org.wfview.wfview.metainfo.xml for metainfo checking.
> 
> It seems metainfo file validation is not optional:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/
> #_app_data_validate_usage
> Also basename of desktop file MUST match name of metainfo. This is not
> currently the case. Since I have already given review+, I am not going to
> revoke it again. Please fix AppData anyway.

Thanks, fixed. I also fixed systemd service file mode, it shouldn't be executable.

FEDORA-2024-30b482896b (wfview-1.64-3.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-30b482896b

FEDORA-2024-7681f84ebd (wfview-1.64-3.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-7681f84ebd

FEDORA-2024-a1fd0fcf1c (wfview-1.64-3.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-a1fd0fcf1c

FEDORA-2024-a1fd0fcf1c 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-2024-a1fd0fcf1c \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-a1fd0fcf1c

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

FEDORA-2024-7681f84ebd has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-7681f84ebd \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-7681f84ebd

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

FEDORA-2024-30b482896b has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-30b482896b \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-30b482896b

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

FEDORA-2024-a1fd0fcf1c (wfview-1.64-3.fc39) has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2024-7681f84ebd (wfview-1.64-3.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2024-30b482896b (wfview-1.64-3.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.