Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fale/airspyhf/srpm-builds/09256699/soapy-airspyhf.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fale/airspyhf/srpm-builds/09256699/soapy-airspyhf-0.2.020230703gita2fd6cf-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: Software for AirSpy HF+, a high performance software defined radio for the HF and VHF bands. COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fale/airspyhf/build/9256653/ Fedora Account System Username: fale
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 :)