[Bug 750591] Review Request: uhd - universal HW driver for Ettus Research products (i.e. HW for gnuradio)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750591

--- Comment #1 from Jan Kaluža <jkaluza@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-11-30 03:41:20 EST ---
[!] 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.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]