Hide Forgot
Spec URL: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/usbsoftrock.spec SRPM URL: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/usbsoftrock-1.0.2-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Simple program which accepts convenient command line options (e.g., frequencies in MHz), speaks the DG8SAQ USB protocol, understands the Si570, and can act as a daemon listening over UDP for control messages.
Looking at the source code, the license is GPLv2+, not GPLv3+. I see they state GPLv3 on Google Code. Please ask for clarification. Please remove the empty lines at the bottom. If you don't want to package for EPEL 5, you can remove buildroot, clean section and the rm in the install section: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#BuildRoot_tag Defattr is no longer necessary.
Are you still interested in this package, Lucian?
Sorry for late response. I somehow missed your initial message and the second too. I've asked for clarification regarding the actual license version. Until than license has been changed to GPLv2+. Updated version of the files: Spec URL: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/usbsoftrock.spec SRPM URL: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/usbsoftrock-1.0.2-2.fc17.src.rpm I intend to build for EPEL5. Thank you.
I think the udev file should be installed in /lib/udev/rules.d. I'm not sure if you must require udev for the directory. The udev files don't seem to be considered configuration by any package I looked at. Please peek into this thread for details: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-October/158357.html The udev file references a group "plugdev", which doesn't exist.
Lucian?
Updated package: Spec URL: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/usbsoftrock.spec SRPM URL: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/usbsoftrock-1.0.2-3.fc18.src.rpm
chmod belongs in the prep section. The description is misleading, when it says "and can act as a daemon listening over UDP for control messages.". It is not really a daemon. README says "... I'm contemplating providing a background daemon version ...". As there is no forking, I suppose it is not a daemon. If it were, the package would also need systemd unit files. Other than that, we should be fine.
Indeed, this package is not a daemon and description was misleading. I slightly changed description and I've dropped the part about the daemon. Updated package: Spec URL: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/usbsoftrock.spec SRPM URL: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/usbsoftrock-1.0.2-4.fc18.src.rpm
==APPROVED== There are a couple of compiler warnings. Maybe you can sort them out together with upstream. The exclamation marks on the EPEL5 items only apply, if you don't go for EPEL5. In that case, please resolve them. Please rename the source file, as described in the comment below. A little note on your changelog entry: My words are by no means the guidelines, only a reviewer's notes. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. ==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: MUST 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 %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* UNKNOWN", "*No copyright* GENERATED FILE", "GPL (v2 or later)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /home/makerpm/756465-usbsoftrock/licensecheck.txt [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [-]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described. I can't test it, because I don't own such a device. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source1 (rules-usb) [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 See: None Rpmlint ------- Checking: usbsoftrock-1.0.2-3.fc16.src.rpm usbsoftrock-debuginfo-1.0.2-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm usbsoftrock-1.0.2-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm usbsoftrock.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary usbsoftrock 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint usbsoftrock usbsoftrock.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US usbsoftrock.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary usbsoftrock 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- usbsoftrock-debuginfo-1.0.2-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): usbsoftrock-1.0.2-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libncurses.so.5()(64bit) libtinfo.so.5()(64bit) libusb-0.1.so.4()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- usbsoftrock-debuginfo-1.0.2-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm: usbsoftrock-debuginfo = 1.0.2-3.fc16 usbsoftrock-debuginfo(x86-64) = 1.0.2-3.fc16 usbsoftrock-1.0.2-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm: usbsoftrock = 1.0.2-3.fc16 usbsoftrock(x86-64) = 1.0.2-3.fc16 MD5-sum check ------------- http://usbsoftrock.googlecode.com/files/usbsoftrock-1.0.2.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : d2ea9bebf93938f419e2db0e82204b48 MD5SUM upstream package : d2ea9bebf93938f419e2db0e82204b48 Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (53cc903) last change: 2012-07-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 756465 External plugins:
Thank you for the review! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: usbsoftrock Short Description: Command line utility for interfacing with Si570 based SDR kits Owners: lucilanga Branches: f17 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Lucian, can we close this ticket?
Thanks Volker! Closing.