https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432076 --- Comment #4 from Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Arthur Mello from comment #3) Thanks for the review. > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > > > Issues: > ======= > - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. > Note: urh : /usr/lib64/python3.5/site- > packages/urh/dev/native/includes/libhackrf/hackrf.h urh : > /usr/lib64/python3.5/site-packages/urh/dev/native/includes/rtl-sdr.h urh > : /usr/lib64/python3.5/site-packages/urh/dev/native/includes/rtl- > sdr_export.h > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages > It seems it bundled libraries, thus removed them. > - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 > False positive, all deps has to be listed, no exception at the moment: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Build-Time_Dependencies_.28BuildRequires.29 > > ===== MUST items ===== > > C/C++: > [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. > [x]: Package contains no static executables. > [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see > attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. > > /************************************************************************* > * Unversioned so-files generated via CPython. > > ************************************************************************/ IMHO no ld path, thus probably OK. > Generic: > [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. > > /************************************************************************* > * Legal section mentions that if src contains generated code, original > * source files from which it was generated must be added. Some binaries > * presented on src are deleted during %prep but data/hacker.prof is > still > * present. It is not clear if such file is necessary to build package > and > * how it is generated. > > ************************************************************************/ hacker.prof seems like lsprof profiling data, you can visualize it by e.g.: $ gprof2dot-py3 -f pstats hacker.prof | dot -Tpng -o output.png very probably upstream leftover and useless for the distro, so we can remove it. > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Apache (v2.0)", "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL > (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 351 files have unknown > license. Detailed output of licensecheck attached: > > /************************************************************************* > * Following documentation under Fedora Licensing, ASL 2.0 (pkg license) > * it is not compatible with GPL v2. Package contains GPL v2 or later > * license in some files. It is not clear for me if ASL is compatible > with > * such scenario, so please ignore this if it was. > > ************************************************************************/ Thanks for the catch, it links with the hackrf and rtl-sdr which are GPLv2 and GPLv2+ respectively thus we also need GPLv2. The costas_loop is not packaged/used, so we are probably OK here, but I am explicitly removing it in the %prep to be 100% sure. > [!] : Sources contain only permissible code or content. > > /************************************************************************* > * Doubts about hacker.proof file > > ************************************************************************/ Removed, it should be resolved now. > [!]: Development files must be in a -devel package > > /************************************************************************* > * Again CPython files, not sure if we are able to remove those or no > > ************************************************************************/ I removed them, I think it should be OK now. > [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > It could be OK now (or at least better). > [!]: Latest version is packaged. > It was a while, updated. > [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [!]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains > translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. Non mandatory, it's rather an exception when it does in Fedora :) > [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. It seems the tests are broken and are downloading libraries from the Internet. I would omit them for now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
