Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/libad9361-iio/libad9361-iio.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/libad9361-iio/libad9361-iio-0.3-1.fc44.src.rpm Description: IIO AD9361 library which manages multi-chip sync (on platforms (FMCOMMS5) where multiple AD9361 devices are use) and can create AD9361 specific FIR filters on the fly. Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9749732 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2407420-libad9361-iio/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09749732-libad9361-iio/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.
It's for enablement of gr-iio in the gnuradio. The gr-iio enables data streaming and control of any device with an Industrial Input/Output (IIO) kernel driver. The module not only supports SDRs like ADALM-PLUTO and USRP-E310 today but also provides access to hundreds of sensor devices and even gigasample converters using the standard kernel framework.
Created attachment 2112542 [details] Patch to simplify docs handling
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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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 8329 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libad9361-iio-0.3-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm libad9361-iio-devel-0.3-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm libad9361-iio-doc-0.3-1.fc44.noarch.rpm libad9361-iio-0.3-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp1mobh5n9')] checks: 32, packages: 4 libad9361-iio.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot IIO AD9361 library for filter design and handling, multi-chip sync, etc. libad9361-iio.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot IIO AD9361 library for filter design and handling, multi-chip sync, etc. libad9361-iio.spec: W: no-%check-section libad9361-iio.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/libad9361-iio/LICENSE 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 23 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libad9361-iio-debuginfo-0.3-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpr7zohclk')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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: 4 libad9361-iio.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot IIO AD9361 library for filter design and handling, multi-chip sync, etc. libad9361-iio.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/libad9361-iio/LICENSE 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 24 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/analogdevicesinc/libad9361-iio/archive/v0.3/libad9361-iio-0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1dc35dd997e1938a97489fa1f349ee16889f9de8901a2c7af46184468dc90598 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1dc35dd997e1938a97489fa1f349ee16889f9de8901a2c7af46184468dc90598 Requires -------- libad9361-iio (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libiio.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libad9361-iio-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libad9361-iio(x86-64) libad9361.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig libad9361-iio-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libad9361-iio Provides -------- libad9361-iio: libad9361-iio libad9361-iio(x86-64) libad9361.so.0()(64bit) libad9361-iio-devel: libad9361-iio-devel libad9361-iio-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libad9361) libad9361-iio-doc: libad9361-iio-doc Summary: a) add %check section which runs "make test" b) fix Summary c) ping upstream about the wrong fsf address (optional) d) consider to simplify docs handling, see patch in previous comment (optional)
Thanks for the review, new version: Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/libad9361-iio/libad9361-iio.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/libad9361-iio/libad9361-iio-0.3-1.fc44.src.rpm
Created attachment 2112741 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9749732 to 9767072
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9767072 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2407420-libad9361-iio/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09767072-libad9361-iio/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.
Upstream PR: https://github.com/analogdevicesinc/libad9361-iio/pull/135
> https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2407420-libad9361-iio/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09767072-libad9361-iio/builder-live.log.gz > > + cd libad9361-iio-0.3 > + make V=1 check > make: *** No rule to make target 'check'. Stop. > error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.wrWgrQ (%check) Should be make test I think
(In reply to Terje Rosten from comment #9) > > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2407420-libad9361-iio/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09767072-libad9361-iio/builder-live.log.gz > > > > + cd libad9361-iio-0.3 > > + make V=1 check > > make: *** No rule to make target 'check'. Stop. > > error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.wrWgrQ (%check) > > Should be > > make test > > I think Sorry, I commented faster than I fixed it: cd %{_vpath_builddir} %make_build test
Ok, thanks package is APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libad9361-iio
FEDORA-2025-ad9eefbf0e (libad9361-iio-0.3-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-ad9eefbf0e
FEDORA-2025-ad9eefbf0e (libad9361-iio-0.3-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-6a515e1bf7 (libad9361-iio-0.3-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-6a515e1bf7
FEDORA-2025-66a8c3e6d2 (libad9361-iio-0.3-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-66a8c3e6d2
FEDORA-2025-22a9fd7893 (libad9361-iio-0.3-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-22a9fd7893
FEDORA-2025-6a515e1bf7 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-6a515e1bf7 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-6a515e1bf7 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-22a9fd7893 has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-22a9fd7893 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-22a9fd7893 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-66a8c3e6d2 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-66a8c3e6d2 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-66a8c3e6d2 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-66a8c3e6d2 (libad9361-iio-0.3-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-22a9fd7893 (libad9361-iio-0.3-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-6a515e1bf7 (libad9361-iio-0.3-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.