Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/chirp/chirp.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/chirp/chirp-0.3.0-0.1.20200514hg3351.fc33.src.rpm Description: Chirp is a tool for programming two-way radio equipment It provides a generic user interface to the programming data and process that can drive many radio models under the hood. Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad Script for snapshot preparation which will be added to the dist-git: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/chirp/get_snapshot This is an request for re-review of the retired package. The package has been retired because it wasn't python3 compatible. But upstream did some progress and now the experimental py3 branch with some additional downstream patching - patch was sent upstream - works with python3.
Upstream ticket for the included patch: https://chirp.danplanet.com/issues/7877
Overall looks good! Just two things... Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Need to document how the source is generated with comments above Source0: - Let's paste a link to the upstream issue in a comment above Patch1:... ===== MUST items ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3 or later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v3 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)". 229 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/build/fedora-review/1835934-chirp/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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]: 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 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 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: 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. [x]: 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: [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: chirp-0.3.0-0.1.20200514hg3351.fc33.noarch.rpm chirp-0.3.0-0.1.20200514hg3351.fc33.src.rpm chirp.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary chirpwx.py chirp.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpttool chirp.src: W: invalid-url Source0: chirp-20200514hg3351.tar.xz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. chirp.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://chirp.danplanet.com/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> chirp.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary chirpwx.py chirp.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpttool 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- chirp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-future python3-gobject python3-pyserial python3-six python3-wxpython4 Provides -------- chirp: application() application(chirp.desktop) chirp python3.8dist(chirp) python3dist(chirp) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1835934 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, SugarActivity, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, R, PHP, Java, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Upstream rejected the patch and wrote that the syntax error is there on purpose meaning the drivers weren't hand converted and tested and may not work. The syntax error is there to prevent the drivers from loading (more in [1]). It's strange approach, but I am unable to test all the drivers, because I don't own all the radios - from the list I own just the UV3R, so I will test it and fix possible runtime errors I will encounter. I will probably also try to propose this UV3R patch upstream. Regarding the rest of the problematic drivers I will probably remove them from the package and left it on the upstream to finish the conversion in their own pace. It's the following drivers: a/chirp/drivers/alinco.py a/chirp/drivers/anytone.py a/chirp/drivers/anytone_ht.py a/chirp/drivers/ap510.py a/chirp/drivers/baofeng_common.py a/chirp/drivers/baofeng_uv3r.py a/chirp/drivers/bf-t1.py a/chirp/drivers/bj9900.py a/chirp/drivers/bjuv55.py a/chirp/drivers/fd268.py a/chirp/drivers/ft1d.py a/chirp/drivers/ft2800.py a/chirp/drivers/ft2900.py a/chirp/drivers/ft450d.py a/chirp/drivers/ft50.py a/chirp/drivers/ft60.py a/chirp/drivers/ft70.py a/chirp/drivers/ft7100.py a/chirp/drivers/ft8100.py a/chirp/drivers/ft90.py a/chirp/drivers/ftm350.py a/chirp/drivers/kguv8d.py a/chirp/drivers/kguv8dplus.py a/chirp/drivers/kguv8e.py a/chirp/drivers/kguv9dplus.py a/chirp/drivers/kyd.py a/chirp/drivers/kyd_IP620.py a/chirp/drivers/leixen.py a/chirp/drivers/lt725uv.py a/chirp/drivers/puxing.py a/chirp/drivers/radioddity_r2.py a/chirp/drivers/radtel_t18.py a/chirp/drivers/retevis_rt1.py a/chirp/drivers/retevis_rt21.py a/chirp/drivers/retevis_rt22.py a/chirp/drivers/retevis_rt23.py a/chirp/drivers/retevis_rt26.py a/chirp/drivers/rfinder.py a/chirp/drivers/rh5r_v2.py a/chirp/drivers/tdxone_tdq8a.py a/chirp/drivers/th7800.py a/chirp/drivers/th9000.py a/chirp/drivers/th9800.py a/chirp/drivers/th_uv8000.py a/chirp/drivers/thd72.py a/chirp/drivers/thuv1f.py a/chirp/drivers/tk760g.py a/chirp/drivers/ts2000.py a/chirp/drivers/ts480.py a/chirp/drivers/ts590.py a/chirp/drivers/vgc.py a/chirp/drivers/vx6.py a/chirp/drivers/vxa700.py a/chirp/drivers/wouxun.py Upstream also wrote that he appreciate that we don't package anything from the py3 branch at this point, because it's in such a half-working state. Personally, I think it's OK for the rawhide. It's one of the core open source principles to release often and release quickly even in a half-working state. It seems there is startup notification that it's experimental. Moreover I was able to successfully program my UV5R with it. So for me to choose whether I will be able to program my UV5R in rawhide or not, the choice is clear. [1] https://chirp.danplanet.com/issues/7877
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but the unit testing includes cloning. I know it's not the same as talking to a radio but I would think you could compare image output between python2 and python3. I would try to test this but he makes it hard to find where to clone the repository.
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #4) > Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but the unit testing includes cloning. > I know it's not the same as talking to a radio but I would think you could > compare image output between python2 and python3. I would try to test this > but he makes it hard to find where to clone the repository. Personally, I think the conversion could be done semi-automatically, as we successfully did for several and more complex projects and while still keeping python27 backward compatibility. This upstream attitude to the python 3 switch isn't optimal - he was rejecting python3 related patches and bugzillas for a while stating that it's python2 only project. Regarding the repository, did you mean the py3 branch in the Mercurial repository? If yes I posted it in the script in the comment 0, i.e.: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/chirp/get_snapshot Literally it's: http://d-rats.com/hg/chirp.hg py3 branch
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
I am still interested in the package, but it seems upstream didn't progress much. My plan is the following: refresh the snapshot (there are only few new commits), add 3rd party patches (mostly for baofeng), fix drivers for radios I am interested in (ICOM handhelds) and re-introduce it to Fedora. I think it's better to have something than nothing.
I will try to refresh the srpm during this week.
I'll try to take a look as soon as I can once available.
Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/chirp/chirp.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/chirp/chirp-0.3.0%5e20220828hg3608-1.fc35.src.rpm Refreshed package. There may be problems. I tested UV-3R and UV-5R and it works OK. I am also going to check/fix support for my Icoms. It's better to have something than nothing.
The HG archive is generated by: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/chirp/get_snapshot which is mentioned in the spec comment.
(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #12) > The HG archive is generated by: > https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/chirp/get_snapshot > > which is mentioned in the spec comment. It will be included in the dist-git.
Regarding the patch: https://chirp.danplanet.com/issues/7877#change-24761 Unfortunately, it was rejected by upstream. I cannot satisfy the upstream by testing all the supported HW, but I believe that at least some of the HW should work with the patch. I am sending to upstream parts of the patch for HW I own and tested to satisfy upstream.
Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/chirp/chirp.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/chirp/chirp-0.3.0^20220905git8bc8553c-1.fc35.src.rpm Switched to the github repository which is also official upstream repository and should be auto-synced with the upstream Mercurial. Currently, due to some auto-sync upstream problems (reported in the upstream mailing list) the github repository seems to be ahead of the Mercurial. Moreover, the previously mentioned get_snapshot script is no longer needed and will not be included in the dist-git.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.
The build is currently failing on the last patch (`chirp-python3-uv3r-fixes.patch`). IIUC, the patch is attempting to modify the files `/tests/Python3_Driver_Testing.md` and `/tests/py3_remaining.txt` which were not present in the upstream source at commit 8bc8553. Part of the build log with the failure: --------------------------------------- Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.AVyvyd + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + rm -rf chirp-8bc8553ccc169405044f27a1037380fe427997b8 + /usr/lib/rpm/rpmuncompress -x /builddir/build/SOURCES/chirp-8bc8553ccc169405044f27a1037380fe427997b8.tar.gz + STATUS=0 + '[' 0 -ne 0 ']' + cd chirp-8bc8553ccc169405044f27a1037380fe427997b8 + rm -rf /builddir/build/BUILD/chirp-8bc8553ccc169405044f27a1037380fe427997b8-SPECPARTS + /usr/bin/mkdir -p /builddir/build/BUILD/chirp-8bc8553ccc169405044f27a1037380fe427997b8-SPECPARTS + /usr/bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w . + /usr/lib/rpm/rpmuncompress /builddir/build/SOURCES/chirp-0.2.2-install.patch + /usr/bin/patch -p1 -s --fuzz=0 --no-backup-if-mismatch -f + /usr/lib/rpm/rpmuncompress /builddir/build/SOURCES/chirp-python3-fixes.patch + /usr/bin/patch -p1 -s --fuzz=0 --no-backup-if-mismatch -f + /usr/lib/rpm/rpmuncompress /builddir/build/SOURCES/chirp-python3-uv3r-fixes.patch + /usr/bin/patch -p1 -s --fuzz=0 --no-backup-if-mismatch -f The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |diff --git a/tests/Python3_Driver_Testing.md b/tests/Python3_Driver_Testing.md |index 0882460c..79db951b 100644 |--- a/tests/Python3_Driver_Testing.md |+++ b/tests/Python3_Driver_Testing.md -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |diff --git a/tests/py3_remaining.txt b/tests/py3_remaining.txt |index 729ee14e..55bfee8a 100644 |--- a/tests/py3_remaining.txt |+++ b/tests/py3_remaining.txt -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored RPM build errors: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.AVyvyd (%prep) Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.AVyvyd (%prep)
Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/chirp/chirp.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/chirp/chirp-0.4.0%5e20231010git68f6a46f-1.fc40.src.rpm Things changed over time, repackaged the latest snapshot according to the latest python guidelines.
Python guidelines say that `pip install chirp` MUST install the same package or nothing [1], which is not the case here [2]. I understand that the rule did not exist when this package was first created. From the guidelines, it is not clear what the correct procedure is in the case of a retired package, but it may be one of the following: - rename the package, - ask for an exception, - resolve this with Python SIG or PyPI. When I run the chirp binary without arguments, it fails with the following traceback: ``` Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/chirp", line 8, in <module> sys.exit(chirpmain()) ^^^^^^^^^^^ File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/chirp/wxui/__init__.py", line 65, in chirpmain import wx ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'wx' ``` It seems the wXPython dependency is somehow not generated correctly from requirements.txt. Lastly, I would add at least %doc README.chirpc under %files; it seems useful. [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_pypi_parity [2] https://pypi.org/project/chirp/
Thanks for the review, new version with the wx deps workaround and other fixes: Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/chirp/chirp.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/chirp/chirp-0.4.0%5e20231010git68f6a46f-2.fc40.src.rpm Regarding the pypi name conflict, I am working on it. Please continue with the review to find other possible problems, then keep the review open until we resolve the name conflict.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6539772 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-1835934-chirp/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06539772-chirp/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.
A couple of more issues/questions: - The rpttool is still written in Python 2, so it doesn't work. - The package does not install a binary named chirpw, yet there is a manual page for chirpw. What does the manual page relate to?
(In reply to Pavol Zacik from comment #23) > A couple of more issues/questions: > > - The rpttool is still written in Python 2, so it doesn't work. > Good catch. It seems it's not yet migrated. The migration isn't hard, but I don't have the hardware it controls and cannot test it, thus I will drop it for now. > - The package does not install a binary named chirpw, yet there is a manual > page for chirpw. What does the manual page relate to? IMHO it was the manual page for the wx version which had its own executable in the time of early python3 migration. It still seems like a placeholder, because the executable has much more options than described in the manual page. But it's better to have something than nothing, thus I am adding it under the correct name until upstream comes with something better. Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/chirp/chirp.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/chirp/chirp-0.4.0%5e20231010git68f6a46f-3.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 1995171 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6539772 to 6557869
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6557869 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-1835934-chirp/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06557869-chirp/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 for the update; new things still keep showing up: - The spec file has a duplicate `BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils`. - The rpttool shebang fix and `%doc README.rpttool` are now kind of pointless (but since rpttool will probably be reintroduced in the future, I don't see it as a big problem). - The solution of the missing runtime dependency problem suggested by Miro Hrončok in the last comment of [1] seems reasonable to me and works fine. - I see that your patch already got merged upstream. Could you bump to the newest version? This can wait until the final review, when the name conflict is resolved. - I noticed chirp also has locale files and tried playing with those; you should be able to install them using the following steps: 1. add `gettext` and `make` to BuildRequires 2. run `make -c chirp/locale` before %pyproject_wheel 3. install the locale files to %{buildroot} 4. run `%find_lang CHIRP` at the end of %install 5. append `-f CHIRP.lang` to %files
New version Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/chirp/chirp.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/chirp/chirp-0.4.0^20231101git35c8a1c0-1.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 1996646 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6557869 to 6589519
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6589519 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-1835934-chirp/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06589519-chirp/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 for the update. IIUC, chirp looks for the locale files in `/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/chirp/locale` (It prints a warning at startup if that directory is not found). However, this directory is only installed correctly if you build the locale files before running %pyproject_wheel. No other issues found.
(In reply to Pavol Zacik from comment #31) > Thanks for the update. > > IIUC, chirp looks for the locale files in > `/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/chirp/locale` (It prints a warning at > startup if that directory is not found). However, this directory is only > installed correctly if you build the locale files before running > %pyproject_wheel. > > No other issues found. I will probably symlink it, because I think locale should go system wide into /usr/share/locale. In case its built before %pyproject_wheel, it's also installed and packaged by the python macros and the %find_lang macro cannot be used then, otherwise the locale is packaged twice.
> I will probably symlink it, because I think locale should go system wide into /usr/share/locale. In case its built before %pyproject_wheel, it's also installed and packaged by the python macros and the %find_lang macro cannot be used then, otherwise the locale is packaged twice. Ah, ok, that sounds like a nice solution.
Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/chirp/chirp.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/chirp/chirp-0.4.0^20231101git35c8a1c0-2.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 1996702 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6589519 to 6590897
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6590897 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-1835934-chirp/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06590897-chirp/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.
Looks good. Any news on the name conflict? Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps I don't think this is a problem, since these directories are used by core packages, including gnome. [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]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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]: 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 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 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 4997 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [x]: 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 Note: pip install chirp installs different software [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 ===== 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. [x]: %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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: chirp-0.4.0^20231101git35c8a1c0-2.fc40.noarch.rpm chirp+wx-0.4.0^20231101git35c8a1c0-2.fc40.noarch.rpm chirp-0.4.0^20231101git35c8a1c0-2.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/tmpgq1mo2_n')] checks: 31, packages: 3 chirp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/chirp/cli/main.py 644 /usr/bin/env python chirp.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary chirpc chirp.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/chirp/locale ../../../../share/locale dangling-relative-symlinkchirp.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/chirp/share/chirp.desktop ../../../../../share/applications/chirp.desktop chirp.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/chirp/share/chirp.svg ../../../../../share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/chirp.svg chirp.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/chirp/share/chirpw.1 ../../../../../share/man/man1/chirp.1.gz chirp.noarch: E: compressed-symlink-with-wrong-ext /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/chirp/share/chirpw.1 ../../../../../share/man/man1/chirp.1.gz ============================================================================ 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 1.0 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: 2 chirp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/chirp/cli/main.py 644 /usr/bin/env python Note: Not a bug; the file is not meant to be executed manually. chirp.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary chirpc Note: Not a bug; upstream does not ship a manual page for chirpc. chirp.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/chirp/locale ../../../../share/locale chirp.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/chirp/share/chirp.desktop ../../../../../share/applications/chirp.desktop chirp.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/chirp/share/chirp.svg ../../../../../share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/chirp.svg chirp.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/chirp/share/chirpw.1 ../../../../../share/man/man1/chirp.1.gz Note: Not a bug; the built package contains the symlink targets. chirp.noarch: E: compressed-symlink-with-wrong-ext /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/chirp/share/chirpw.1 ../../../../../share/man/man1/chirp.1.gz Note: Not a bug; the manual page works as expected. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/kk7ds/chirp/archive/35c8a1c05730be4df5507008a32425c4d7c7b792/chirp-35c8a1c05730be4df5507008a32425c4d7c7b792.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : af190048e551e86856a2428ddc1d50e56e595bb13d9f1b50ea09540105ce0f22 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : af190048e551e86856a2428ddc1d50e56e595bb13d9f1b50ea09540105ce0f22 Requires -------- chirp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.12dist(future) python3.12dist(pyserial) python3.12dist(requests) python3.12dist(six) python3.12dist(yattag) chirp+wx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 chirp python(abi) python3.12dist(wxpython) Provides -------- chirp: chirp python3.12dist(chirp) python3dist(chirp) chirp+wx: application() application(chirp.desktop) chirp+wx mimehandler(inode/directory) python3.12dist(chirp[wx]) python3dist(chirp[wx]) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1835934 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, Haskell, PHP, Ocaml, C/C++, Java, SugarActivity, Perl, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Reply from mhroncok: The rpm package can still be called chirp, it just cannot provide Python metadata for a "chirp" package if it ain't https://pypi.org/project/chirp/ To fix this, you can either remove all Python metadata altogether or rename the package in setup.py: https://github.com/kk7ds/chirp/blob/35c8a1c05730/setup.py#L4 For example to "chirp-project". (Preferably upstream.) I will probably remove the metadata.
I renamed it in the metadata, because it was much easier solution and also explicitly required hicolor-icon-theme. Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/chirp/chirp.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/chirp/chirp-0.4.0^20231101git35c8a1c0-3.fc40.src.rpm
Approved.
Thanks.
Unretirement is waiting for relengs: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11770
FEDORA-2023-2c044dff8b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2c044dff8b
FEDORA-2023-f7bd917ae7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f7bd917ae7
FEDORA-2023-f7bd917ae7 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-f7bd917ae7 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f7bd917ae7 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-2c044dff8b 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-2023-2c044dff8b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2c044dff8b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-4803104fcc has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-4803104fcc` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4803104fcc See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-f7bd917ae7 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-4803104fcc has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.