Bug 2378972

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9256706
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2378972-airspyhf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09256706-soapy-airspyhf/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
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.

I've tested and it compiles on rawhide: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fale/airspyhf/build/9256997/

[fedora-review-service-build]

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9257034
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2378972-airspyhf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09257034-soapy-airspyhf/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
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/fale/airspyhf/fedora-42-x86_64/09256653-airspyhf/airspyhf.spec
srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fale/airspyhf/fedora-42-x86_64/09256653-airspyhf/airspyhf-1.6.8%5E20250421git7b94498-1.fc42.src.rpm

Thanks for the correct link :).

spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fale/airspyhf/fedora-42-x86_64/09256653-airspyhf/airspyhf.spec
srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fale/airspyhf/fedora-42-x86_64/09256653-airspyhf/airspyhf-1.6.8%5E20250421git7b94498-1.fc42.src.rpm

[fedora-review-service-build]

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]: 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.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU General
     Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
     Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later
     [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]". 11 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/fedora-packaging/my-packages/airspyhf/2378972-
     airspyhf/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: 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
     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.
[ ]: 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 2608 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).
[ ]: 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.
[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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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: airspyhf-1.6.8^20250421git7b94498-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          airspyhf-devel-1.6.8^20250421git7b94498-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          airspyhf-1.6.8^20250421git7b94498-1.fc43.src.rpm
============================ 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpw1az5eb4')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

airspyhf.src: E: summary-too-long AirSpy HF+ host software, a high performance software defined radio for the HF and VHF bands.
airspyhf.x86_64: E: summary-too-long AirSpy HF+ host software, a high performance software defined radio for the HF and VHF bands.
airspyhf.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot AirSpy HF+ host software, a high performance software defined radio for the HF and VHF bands.
airspyhf.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot AirSpy HF+ host software, a high performance software defined radio for the HF and VHF bands.
airspyhf-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('libairspy', '%description -l en_US libairspy -> hairspray')
airspyhf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary airspyhf_calibrate
airspyhf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary airspyhf_gpio
airspyhf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary airspyhf_info
airspyhf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary airspyhf_lib_version
airspyhf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary airspyhf_rx
airspyhf-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
airspyhf.spec: W: no-%check-section
airspyhf.x86_64: W: empty-%postun
airspyhf.x86_64: W: empty-%post
airspyhf.src: W: description-shorter-than-summary
airspyhf.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 13 warnings, 27 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.5 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: airspyhf-debuginfo-1.6.8^20250421git7b94498-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
============================ 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp6z5341qs')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 20 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/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

airspyhf.x86_64: E: summary-too-long AirSpy HF+ host software, a high performance software defined radio for the HF and VHF bands.
airspyhf.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot AirSpy HF+ host software, a high performance software defined radio for the HF and VHF bands.
airspyhf-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('libairspy', '%description -l en_US libairspy -> hairspray')
airspyhf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary airspyhf_calibrate
airspyhf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary airspyhf_gpio
airspyhf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary airspyhf_info
airspyhf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary airspyhf_lib_version
airspyhf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary airspyhf_rx
airspyhf-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
airspyhf.x86_64: W: empty-%postun
airspyhf.x86_64: W: empty-%post
airspyhf.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings, 49 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.7 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/airspy/airspyhf/archive/7b94498638f49ac66f806a60c711db8bbb1518fb/airspyhf-7b94498.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 10d2825ac99d33175061339c565be5d738dd8989ac0aae88ed07d70fbee0af90
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 10d2825ac99d33175061339c565be5d738dd8989ac0aae88ed07d70fbee0af90


Requires
--------
airspyhf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    libairspyhf.so.0()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    systemd-udev

airspyhf-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    airspyhf(x86-64)
    libairspyhf.so.0()(64bit)



Provides
--------
airspyhf:
    airspyhf
    airspyhf(x86-64)
    libairspyhf.so.0()(64bit)

airspyhf-devel:
    airspyhf-devel
    airspyhf-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(libairspyhf)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2378972
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: R, fonts, Perl, Python, SugarActivity, Haskell, Ocaml, PHP, Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Koji build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=135057630

b) Licenses seem to be BSD-3-Clause, GPL-2.0-or-later and LGPL-2.1-or-later,
please check which are included in the packaged software. GPL license does
not seem to be present in the sources, though LGPL is.

c) Is it possible to run a smoke test on any of the binaries? For example
checking the version.

Thanks :)

Spec URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/airspyhf.spec
SRPM URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/airspyhf-1.6.8%5e20250421git7b94498-1.fc42.src.rpm
Koji scratch-build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=135201026

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9369248
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2378972-airspyhf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09369248-airspyhf/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.

Would it be possible to progress on this review? Thanks :)

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]: 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.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU General
     Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
     Version 2.1", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU Lesser
     General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal address
     (Temple Place)]". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/airspyhf/2378972-
     airspyhf/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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
     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.
[ ]: 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 2608 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).
[ ]: 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.
[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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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: airspyhf-1.6.8^20250421git7b94498-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm
          airspyhf-devel-1.6.8^20250421git7b94498-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm
          airspyhf-1.6.8^20250421git7b94498-1.fc44.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/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/tmpo_vu62a2')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

airspyhf-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('libairspy', '%description -l en_US libairspy -> hairspray')
airspyhf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary airspyhf_calibrate
airspyhf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary airspyhf_gpio
airspyhf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary airspyhf_info
airspyhf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary airspyhf_lib_version
airspyhf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary airspyhf_rx
airspyhf-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
airspyhf.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/airspyhf/LICENSE_LGPL
airspyhf.x86_64: W: empty-%postun
airspyhf.x86_64: W: empty-%post
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 8 warnings, 28 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.6 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: airspyhf-debuginfo-1.6.8^20250421git7b94498-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/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/tmple15o3l5')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 20 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/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

airspyhf-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('libairspy', '%description -l en_US libairspy -> hairspray')
airspyhf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary airspyhf_calibrate
airspyhf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary airspyhf_gpio
airspyhf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary airspyhf_info
airspyhf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary airspyhf_lib_version
airspyhf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary airspyhf_rx
airspyhf-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
airspyhf.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/airspyhf/LICENSE_LGPL
airspyhf.x86_64: W: empty-%postun
airspyhf.x86_64: W: empty-%post
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 8 warnings, 50 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.8 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/airspy/airspyhf/archive/7b94498638f49ac66f806a60c711db8bbb1518fb/airspyhf-7b94498.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 10d2825ac99d33175061339c565be5d738dd8989ac0aae88ed07d70fbee0af90
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 10d2825ac99d33175061339c565be5d738dd8989ac0aae88ed07d70fbee0af90


Requires
--------
airspyhf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    libairspyhf.so.0()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    systemd-udev

airspyhf-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    airspyhf(x86-64)
    libairspyhf.so.0()(64bit)



Provides
--------
airspyhf:
    airspyhf
    airspyhf(x86-64)
    libairspyhf.so.0()(64bit)

airspyhf-devel:
    airspyhf-devel
    airspyhf-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(libairspyhf)



Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2378972
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Perl, SugarActivity, Python, R, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell, Java, fonts
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Libraries should have first part of soname, please change
%{_libdir}/libairspyhf.so.*
to
%{_libdir}/libairspyhf.so.0
%{_libdir}/libairspyhf.so.1{,.*}
see
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shared_libraries

Would have expected both to be either so.0* or so.1*

b) getopt is not used on Linux:
https://github.com/airspy/airspyhf/blob/master/tools/CMakeLists.txt#L36-L41
so probably LGPL license is not needed
to ensure it is not included, remove thet getopt code in the prep stage

c) Man pages would be nice, but not blocking the review.

d) Consider making a pull request to add GPL license upstream as it is used in a 
number of files:

GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
----------------------------------------
airspyhf-1.6.8_20250421git7b94498-build/airspyhf-7b94498638f49ac66f806a60c711db8bbb1518fb/libairspyhf/CMakeLists.txt
airspyhf-1.6.8_20250421git7b94498-build/airspyhf-7b94498638f49ac66f806a60c711db8bbb1518fb/tools/CMakeLists.txt
airspyhf-1.6.8_20250421git7b94498-build/airspyhf-7b94498638f49ac66f806a60c711db8bbb1518fb/tools/src/CMakeLists.txt
airspyhf-1.6.8_20250421git7b94498-build/airspyhf-7b94498638f49ac66f806a60c711db8bbb1518fb/tools/src/airspyhf_calibrate.c
airspyhf-1.6.8_20250421git7b94498-build/airspyhf-7b94498638f49ac66f806a60c711db8bbb1518fb/tools/src/airspyhf_gpio.c
airspyhf-1.6.8_20250421git7b94498-build/airspyhf-7b94498638f49ac66f806a60c711db8bbb1518fb/tools/src/airspyhf_info.c
airspyhf-1.6.8_20250421git7b94498-build/airspyhf-7b94498638f49ac66f806a60c711db8bbb1518fb/tools/src/airspyhf_lib_version.c
airspyhf-1.6.8_20250421git7b94498-build/airspyhf-7b94498638f49ac66f806a60c711db8bbb1518fb/tools/src/airspyhf_rx.c
e) Explicitly listing binaries would be preferred:
%{_bindir}/airspyhf_*
to
%{_bindir}/airspyhf_calibrate
%{_bindir}/airspyhf_gpio
%{_bindir}/airspyhf_info
%{_bindir}/airspyhf_lib_version
%{_bindir}/airspyhf_rx

Spec URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/airspyhf.spec
SRPM URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/airspyhf-1.6.8%5e20260107git30e0422-1.fc43.src.rpm

Thanks! I think the only uncovered point is "Would have expected both to be either so.0* or so.1*". I could agree on that, but upstream opted for this approach, and making a deliberate change on it might be not the best approach, imho

Created attachment 2121404 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9369248 to 9981750

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9981750
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2378972-airspyhf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09981750-airspyhf/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.

Thanks. Approved.

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

FEDORA-2026-e16d23d50c (airspyhf-1.6.8^20260107git30e0422-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-e16d23d50c

FEDORA-2026-e16d23d50c (airspyhf-1.6.8^20260107git30e0422-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Thanks a lot Benson :)