Spec URL: https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/isaact/rpms/gr-iio/raw/f32/f/gr-iio.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9351/54929351/gr-iio-0.3-13.20201104gitb3bd9ed.fc32.src.rpm Description: Hi, I'm looking for a sponsor to help me unretire this package and become its maintainer (this would be my first package). I've fixed the issues that stopped the package from building, and updated the package to restore compatibility with the version of the GNU Radio package installed on Fedora 32. My pull request is here https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gr-iio/pull-request/1 Fedora Account System Username: isaact
- I would prefer using isa_bits here if [ "%{__isa_bits}" = "64" ]; then %cmake -DUSE_LIB64:BOOL=ON . else %cmake -DUSE_LIB64:BOOL=OFF . fi - In order to avoid unintentional soname bump, we recommend not globbing the major soname version. %{_libdir}/libgnuradio-iio.so.0* - Remove the shebang for this file in %prep: see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Remove_shebang_from_Python_libraries gr-iio.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/iio/attr_updater.py 644 /usr/bin/env python 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]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 37 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gr-iio/review-gr-iio/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. [-]: 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. [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 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 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. [x]: 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: [-]: 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. [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. [-]: 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]: 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: gr-iio-0.3-14.20201104gitb3bd9ed.fc34.x86_64.rpm gr-iio-devel-0.3-14.20201104gitb3bd9ed.fc34.x86_64.rpm gr-iio-debuginfo-0.3-14.20201104gitb3bd9ed.fc34.x86_64.rpm gr-iio-debugsource-0.3-14.20201104gitb3bd9ed.fc34.x86_64.rpm gr-iio-0.3-14.20201104gitb3bd9ed.fc34.src.rpm gr-iio.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libgnuradio-iio.so.0.3 exit.5 gr-iio.x86_64: W: no-documentation gr-iio.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/iio/attr_updater.py 644 /usr/bin/env python gr-iio-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Note that you still need to find a sponsor after this package is approved.
Hi Robert-André, Thanks for your comments. I've made the suggested changes and I've rebuilt the package: SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/isaact/gr-iio/fedora-32-x86_64/01767272-gr-iio/gr-iio-0.3-14.20201104gitb3bd9ed.fc32.src.rpm Spec: https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/isaact/rpms/gr-iio/raw/master/f/gr-iio.spec Cheers, Isaac
LGTM, package approved. You still need to find a sporsor: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
I've sponsored you.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 32 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 32 on 2021-05-25. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '32'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 32 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 32 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2021-05-25. Fedora 32 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.