Spec URL: http://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/gnuradio/uhd.spec SRPM URL: http://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/gnuradio/uhd-3.3.0-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Hi, I just packaged UHD and I would appreciate the review. UHD is the universal hardware driver for Ettus Research products. The goal of the UHD is to provide a host driver and API for current and future Ettus Research products. It can be used standalone without gnuradio, but it is the key component of gnuradio. The gnuradio upstream dropped the old USRP driver in their latest 3.5.0 pre-release (currently heading into rawhide), thus the only way how to support the Ettus boards is now via the new and recommended UHD. That's why I packaged it.
[!] rpmplint is silent uhd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gnuradio -> gnu radio, gnu-radio, radiogram uhd.x86_64: W: no-documentation uhd-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation uhd-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary uhd_find_devices uhd-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary uhd_usrp_probe 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. It looks they call it "GNU Radio" officialy. It's not big problem, but it fixes the warning imho. For no-documentation, check "License file is present..." below. uhd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gnuradio -> gnu radio, gnu-radio, radiogram uhd.src: W: invalid-url Source0: uhd-3.3.0.tar.gz That's OK, since upstream doesn't provide useful tarball. [YES] Package meets naming guidelines. [YES] Package meets packaging guidelines. [YES] Spec file matches base package name. [NO] License file is present, matching with spec file. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text There's license file installed in -doc subpackage, so I presume it could be installed also in the main uhd package according to guidelines. [YES] Licensing Guidelines are met. [YES] Spec file is legible and in American English. [YES] Sources match upstream. You should use tag instead of revision hash to make it clearer you're using proper version. Just replace git hash with release_003_003_000. You can list all tags using "git tag". [YES] Package builds OK. [YES] BuildRequires are correct. [YES] Package doesn't bundle copies of system libraries. [YES] Package owns all the directories it creates. [YES] Package has no duplicity in %files. [YES] Permission on files are set properly. [YES] Package is code or permissible content. [YES] %doc files don't affect runtime. [YES] Package doesn't own files/directories that other packages own. [YES] All files are valid UTF-8. Should items: [YES] Package builds in mock. [YES] Package uses sane scriptlets. [NO] Package contains man pages. [YES] Very simple functionality test passed.
Thanks for the review. Hopefully I fixed it all: Spec URL: http://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/gnuradio/uhd.spec SRPM URL: http://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/gnuradio/uhd-3.3.0-2.fc14.src.rpm > It looks they call it "GNU Radio" officialy. It's not big problem, but it fixes the warning imho. > I took the description from the upstream, but no problem to fix. > There's license file installed in -doc subpackage, so I presume it could be installed also in the main uhd package according to guidelines. > Basic docs (including license) were moved to base package. > You should use tag instead of revision hash to make it clearer you're using proper version. Just replace git hash with release_003_003_000. > Just comments, but fixed. I also removed defattrs, switched to macros style instead of variables and I moved the binaries to base backage from devel.
I think everything is OK now. Setting the fedora-review flag to +.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: uhd Short Description: Universal Hardware Driver for Ettus Research products Owners: jskarvad Branches: f16 InitialCC: jkaluza
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: uhd New Branches: epel7 Owners: jskarvad InitialCC: