https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432076
--- Comment #4 from Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad(a)redhat.com> ---
(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/Guidelin...
===== 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