Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/rtl-sdr/rtl-sdr.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/rtl-sdr/rtl-sdr-0-0.1.20130403git4a068f56.fc18.src.rpm Description: This package can turn your RTL2832 based DVB-T dongle into a SDR receiver. Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad The rtl-sdr-0-lib64-fix.patch was sent upstream.
Hi, - can you add a comment to the spec, saying patch was sent upstream ? ( just for tracking purpose, even if I guess it will be included upstream ) - why is doxygen and graphviz needed, as the documentation is not in the rpm ? ( ie, shouldn't the doc end in some rpm ? )
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Errors ====== - License is wrong, since there is a bundle of getopt - there is getopt in bundle - -devel should pull main with %{_isa} - patch being sent upstream should be documented in spec - install should use -p ( if I am not wrong ), but that's minor ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/949336-rtl-sdr/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/udev, /etc/udev/rules.d [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. [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rtl-sdr- devel [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. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [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 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 do not use a name that already exist [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: [-]: 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. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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: rtl-sdr-0-0.1.20130403git4a068f56.fc18.x86_64.rpm rtl-sdr-devel-0-0.1.20130403git4a068f56.fc18.x86_64.rpm rtl-sdr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rtl_fm rtl-sdr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rtl_tcp rtl-sdr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rtl_sdr rtl-sdr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rtl_adsb rtl-sdr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rtl_eeprom rtl-sdr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rtl_test rtl-sdr-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rtl-sdr rtl-sdr-devel rtl-sdr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rtl_fm rtl-sdr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rtl_tcp rtl-sdr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rtl_sdr rtl-sdr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rtl_adsb rtl-sdr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rtl_eeprom rtl-sdr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rtl_test rtl-sdr-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- rtl-sdr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /sbin/ldconfig config(rtl-sdr) libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) librtlsdr.so.0()(64bit) libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) shadow-utils rtl-sdr-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config librtlsdr.so.0()(64bit) rtl-sdr Provides -------- rtl-sdr: config(rtl-sdr) librtlsdr.so.0()(64bit) rtl-sdr rtl-sdr(x86-64) rtl-sdr-devel: pkgconfig(librtlsdr) rtl-sdr-devel rtl-sdr-devel(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (cf29f98) last change: 2013-02-08 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 949336
(In reply to comment #1) > - can you add a comment to the spec, saying patch was sent upstream ? > ( just for tracking purpose, even if I guess it will be included upstream ) > Added. > - why is doxygen and graphviz needed, as the documentation is not in the rpm Leftover, it seems there is no docs supported, removed, thanks for the catch. Both fixed without release bump.
(In reply to comment #2) Thanks for the review. > - License is wrong, since there is a bundle of getopt > > - there is getopt in bundle It seems to be used only on win32, we would probably need to change the license field to GPL, thus removed in %pre and the license should be OK now. > > - -devel should pull main with %{_isa} > fixed > - patch being sent upstream should be documented in spec > fixed > - install should use -p ( if I am not wrong ), but that's minor > fixed Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/rtl-sdr/rtl-sdr.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/rtl-sdr/rtl-sdr-0-0.2.20130403git4a068f56.fc18.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #2) > Thanks for the review. > > > - License is wrong, since there is a bundle of getopt > > > > - there is getopt in bundle > It seems to be used only on win32, we would probably need to change the > license field to GPL, thus removed in %pre and the license should be OK now. > > It was probably OK, but removed in %prep to be safe the code is not included.
Well, for the comment on the patch, that's more to say how it was sent upstream :) bit that's not a blocking point of the review, nd the rest is good, so the package is approved.
(In reply to comment #6) Thanks. > Well, for the comment on the patch, that's more to say how it was sent > upstream :) > I sent it to the person (laforge ) I got from the changelog, but he pointed me to the osmocom-sdr.org list. The list seems to be moderated and the message still didn't show in the archive, thus I cannot add any URL to track this issue, but I will take care.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rtl-sdr Short Description: SDR utilities for Realtek RTL2832 based DVB-T dongles Owners: jskarvad Branches: f18 f19 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
rtl-sdr-0-0.2.20130403git4a068f56.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rtl-sdr-0-0.2.20130403git4a068f56.fc19
rtl-sdr-0-0.2.20130403git4a068f56.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rtl-sdr-0-0.2.20130403git4a068f56.fc18
rtl-sdr-0-0.2.20130403git4a068f56.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
rtl-sdr-0-0.2.20130403git4a068f56.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: rtl-sdr New Branches: epel7 Owners: jskarvad InitialCC: cottsay