https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835934

Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |hobbes1069@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |hobbes1069@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?

--- Comment #2 from Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com --- Overall looks good! Just two things...

Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed

Issues: ======= - Need to document how the source is generated with comments above Source0: - Let's paste a link to the upstream issue in a comment above Patch1:...

===== MUST items =====

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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3 or later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v3 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)". 229 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/build/fedora-review/1835934-chirp/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic: [x]: 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. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: chirp-0.3.0-0.1.20200514hg3351.fc33.noarch.rpm chirp-0.3.0-0.1.20200514hg3351.fc33.src.rpm chirp.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary chirpwx.py chirp.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpttool chirp.src: W: invalid-url Source0: chirp-20200514hg3351.tar.xz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. chirp.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://chirp.danplanet.com/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> chirp.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary chirpwx.py chirp.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpttool 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

Requires -------- chirp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-future python3-gobject python3-pyserial python3-six python3-wxpython4

Provides -------- chirp: application() application(chirp.desktop) chirp python3.8dist(chirp) python3dist(chirp)

Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1835934 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, SugarActivity, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, R, PHP, Java, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835934

--- Comment #4 from Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com --- Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but the unit testing includes cloning. I know it's not the same as talking to a radio but I would think you could compare image output between python2 and python3. I would try to test this but he makes it hard to find where to clone the repository.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835934

Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(hobbes1069@gmail. | |com) |

--- Comment #7 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- I am still interested in the package, but it seems upstream didn't progress much. My plan is the following: refresh the snapshot (there are only few new commits), add 3rd party patches (mostly for baofeng), fix drivers for radios I am interested in (ICOM handhelds) and re-introduce it to Fedora. I think it's better to have something than nothing.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835934

--- Comment #9 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- I will try to refresh the srpm during this week.

Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review

Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com has canceled Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org's request for Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com's needinfo: Bug 1835934: Review Request: chirp - A tool for programming two-way radio equipment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835934

--- Comment #10 from Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com --- I'll try to take a look as soon as I can once available.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835934

--- Comment #12 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- The HG archive is generated by: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/chirp/get_snapshot

which is mentioned in the spec comment.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835934

--- Comment #14 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- Regarding the patch: https://chirp.danplanet.com/issues/7877#change-24761

Unfortunately, it was rejected by upstream. I cannot satisfy the upstream by testing all the supported HW, but I believe that at least some of the HW should work with the patch. I am sending to upstream parts of the patch for HW I own and tested to satisfy upstream.