Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/knight-of-ni/specfiles/master/rtl-433.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/rtl-433/fedora-36-x86_64/04108462-rtl-433/rtl-433-21.12-1.20220401git8228f0d.fc36.src.rpm Description: rtl_433 (despite the name) is a generic data receiver, mainly for the 433.92 MHz, 868 MHz (SRD), 315 MHz, and 915 MHz ISM bands. Fedora Account System Username: kni Comments: The official github project name is "rtl_433" with an underscore. I have changed the package name to "rtl-433", but I left the underscores in the binary name and the similarly named folder owned by the package. I'd be willing to change that if the reviewer can make a convincing argument. Initial plan is to build only for Fedora. SoapySDR and rtl-sdr dependencies are not in EPEL at the moment. I am working to change that. No Complaints from Rpmlint: $ rpmlint rtl-433-21.12-1.20220401git8228f0d.fc35.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s $ rpmlint rtl-433-21.12-1.20220401git8228f0d.fc35.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.1 s $ rpmlint rtl-433-devel-21.12-1.20220401git8228f0d.fc35.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Dependent package libusb has been obsoleted by libusb-compat-0.1 on f37 and newer. Updated SPEC URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/knight-of-ni/specfiles/master/rtl-433.spec Updated SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/rtl-433/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04120952-rtl-433/rtl-433-21.12-2.20220401git8228f0d.fc37.src.rpm
UPDATE - use install rather than cp - commenting out some of the config options made more sensible defaults on my system Updated SPEC URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/knight-of-ni/specfiles/master/rtl-433.spec Updated SRM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/rtl-433/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04166075-rtl-433/rtl-433-21.12-3.20220401git8228f0d.fc37.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. - 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. Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: 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, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "Boost Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]". 113 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/steve/src/fedora/2073196-rtl-433/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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 337920 bytes in 64 files. [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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: 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. [?]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/merbanan/rtl_433/archive/8228f0d4819bb07146b421cce3b535bd4d4db69c/rtl-433-8228f0d4819bb07146b421cce3b535bd4d4db69c.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ffb4cea4bd42e7acd720bc9972a229b46c21430f4708e980786e98b76f0cdecf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ffb4cea4bd42e7acd720bc9972a229b46c21430f4708e980786e98b76f0cdecf Requires -------- rtl-433 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(rtl-433) libSoapySDR.so.0.8()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) librtlsdr.so.0()(64bit) libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) rtl-433-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rtl-433(x86-64) rtl-433-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rtl-433-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- rtl-433: config(rtl-433) rtl-433 rtl-433(x86-64) rtl-433-devel: rtl-433-devel rtl-433-devel(x86-64) rtl-433-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) rtl-433-debuginfo rtl-433-debuginfo(x86-64) rtl-433-debugsource: rtl-433-debugsource rtl-433-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2073196 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Python, fonts, Perl, Ocaml, Java, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks Steve, for the feedback. - Added COPYING to %license - Added %ctest suite to %check Updated SPEC URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/knight-of-ni/specfiles/master/rtl-433.spec Updated SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/rtl-433/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04263170-rtl-433/rtl-433-21.12-4.20220401git8228f0d.fc37.src.rpm fedpkg repo request has been sent
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rtl-433
FEDORA-2022-24f62591a5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-24f62591a5
FEDORA-2022-9b735d5973 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9b735d5973
FEDORA-2022-2f7e10f344 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2f7e10f344
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-59f403da04 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-59f403da04
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a94c6550d6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a94c6550d6
FEDORA-2022-24f62591a5 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-24f62591a5 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-24f62591a5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a94c6550d6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a94c6550d6 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-59f403da04 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-59f403da04 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-2f7e10f344 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-2f7e10f344 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2f7e10f344 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-9b735d5973 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-9b735d5973 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9b735d5973 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-9b735d5973 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-2f7e10f344 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a94c6550d6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-59f403da04 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-24f62591a5 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.