Bug 458457

Marek, thanks for the package.
Actual source file matches upstream.
Mock rebuild succeeded.
Offered functionality was tested.
RPMlint is mostly silent, see below
Uses macros consistently.

Have you thought about renaming the package to gnuradio-companion? That may express the relation to gnuradio, and you'll prevent a potential name clash. It even comes from the same upstream. Probably one day there'll be a lot of grc packages around :)

0.) RPMLint thinks the package should be noarch

You do not ship any binaries. I do not know if the precompiled python stuff is arch-independent -- probably worth trying.

Also, rpmlint complains about shebangs in nonexecutable files.

1.) Please do not create scripts inline in SPEC

That is utterly ugly. You should be ashamed.

2.) Fix your runtime dependencies.

You seem to import at least wx, gtk, pango, etc. We do not have autoreqs for python. Please add the necessary Requires.

The upstream web [1] recommends the following, which you may want to base your decision upon:

    * wx-python
    * numpy
    * gnuradio with gr-wxgui
    * python-gtk2(>=2.6)
    * python-xml and/or pyxml 

[1] http://gnuradio.org/trac/wiki/GNURadioCompanion

3.) License tag does not seem correct.

At least you include some CC blurb in %doc. Are you sure you don't ship any Creative Commons stuff?

(In reply to comment #1)
> Marek, thanks for the package.
> Actual source file matches upstream.
> Mock rebuild succeeded.
> Offered functionality was tested.
> RPMlint is mostly silent, see below
> Uses macros consistently.
> 
> Have you thought about renaming the package to gnuradio-companion? That may
> express the relation to gnuradio, and you'll prevent a potential name clash. It
> even comes from the same upstream. Probably one day there'll be a lot of grc
> packages around :)
> 
> 0.) RPMLint thinks the package should be noarch
> 
> You do not ship any binaries. I do not know if the precompiled python stuff is
> arch-independent -- probably worth trying.

You're right, this package should be noarch, will be fixed in next revision.

> Also, rpmlint complains about shebangs in nonexecutable files.
> 
> 1.) Please do not create scripts inline in SPEC
> 
> That is utterly ugly. You should be ashamed.

Any guideline against this? I like it.

> 2.) Fix your runtime dependencies.
> 
> You seem to import at least wx, gtk, pango, etc. We do not have autoreqs for
> python. Please add the necessary Requires.
> 
> The upstream web [1] recommends the following, which you may want to base your
> decision upon:
> 
>     * wx-python
>     * numpy
>     * gnuradio with gr-wxgui
>     * python-gtk2(>=2.6)
>     * python-xml and/or pyxml 
> 
> [1] http://gnuradio.org/trac/wiki/GNURadioCompanion

All those are fetched with GNURadio itself, this should be fine.

> 3.) License tag does not seem correct.
> 
> At least you include some CC blurb in %doc. Are you sure you don't ship any
> Creative Commons stuff?

Only the icon is under CC, however it's shipped with the package under GPLv2+, should I mention it anyway?

(In reply to comment #1)
> Have you thought about renaming the package to gnuradio-companion? That may
> express the relation to gnuradio, and you'll prevent a potential name clash. It
> even comes from the same upstream. Probably one day there'll be a lot of grc
> packages around :)

It's not from the same upstream, only the guide is hosted on their wiki. It's a separate utility to create configuration files for GNURadio. Thus I know this is not first grc software that will be in Fedora, it's certainly first software w/ "grc" name :)

SRPM URL: http://mmahut.fedorapeople.org/reviews/grc/grc-0.70-3.fc8.src.rpm

I think that grc is a bit short for a name, too.  Lubomir's suggestion to use gnuradio-companion instead would certainly be useful in preventing name clashes. Just because it's the first piece of software claiming a 3 letter name does not mean it really should do it. Especially as it has a desktop file to launch it, so not typing in the console is really needed.

Eventually you could create a symlink named grc...

> > 1.) Please do not create scripts inline in SPEC
> > 
> > That is utterly ugly. You should be ashamed.
> 
> Any guideline against this? I like it.

Yup:
"- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible."

> 
> > 2.) Fix your runtime dependencies.
> > 
> > You seem to import at least wx, gtk, pango, etc. We do not have autoreqs for
> > python. Please add the necessary Requires.
> > 
> > The upstream web [1] recommends the following, which you may want to base your
> > decision upon:
> > 
> >     * wx-python
> >     * numpy
> >     * gnuradio with gr-wxgui
> >     * python-gtk2(>=2.6)
> >     * python-xml and/or pyxml 
> > 
> > [1] http://gnuradio.org/trac/wiki/GNURadioCompanion
> 
> All those are fetched with GNURadio itself, this should be fine.

I do not think so. Fedora 9:

[lkundrak@jesus ~]$ grc

Missing critical module: "xml.dom.ext"

Exiting!

[lkundrak@jesus ~]$ 

> > 3.) License tag does not seem correct.
> > 
> > At least you include some CC blurb in %doc. Are you sure you don't ship any
> > Creative Commons stuff?
> 
> Only the icon is under CC, however it's shipped with the package under GPLv2+,
> should I mention it anyway?

I do not know what does the CC license of the icon say. By including the icon license in License tag can not do any harm, well, I guess... when in doubt please ask on legal m-l.

(In reply to comment #6)
> Yup:
> "- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible."

It is!
 
> I do not think so. Fedora 9:
> 
> [lkundrak@jesus ~]$ grc
> 
> Missing critical module: "xml.dom.ext"
> 
> Exiting!
> 
> [lkundrak@jesus ~]$ 

As you said it's PyXML.

> I do not know what does the CC license of the icon say. By including the icon
> license in License tag can not do any harm, well, I guess... when in doubt
> please ask on legal m-l.

You're right done.

(In reply to comment #5)
> I think that grc is a bit short for a name, too.  Lubomir's suggestion to use
> gnuradio-companion instead would certainly be useful in preventing name
> clashes. Just because it's the first piece of software claiming a 3 letter name
> does not mean it really should do it. Especially as it has a desktop file to
> launch it, so not typing in the console is really needed.

Everyone knows it as grc, it's upstream official name... first anyone would do is to try it install under this name (I could use Provides: grc to save it).

> Eventually you could create a symlink named grc...

But if I create the symlink named grc and provides to grc, that's the point to not name the package itself grc?

SRPM URL: http://mmahut.fedorapeople.org/reviews/grc/grc-0.70-3.fc8.src.rpm

Seems mostly fine, thanks!

Please add "$@" to the launch script and remove .png extension of the Icon in desktop files before commiting.

APPROVED

I see you were faster! Thanks^2 :)

Thank you Lubomir!

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: grc
Short Description: GUI for GNURadio
Owners: mmahut
Branches: F-8 F-9 EL-5

cvs done.

Thank you both! Built and waiting in bodhi! \o/