[Bug 1872713] Review Request: atinout - AT commands as input are sent to modem and responses given as output
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872713 sorensen...@tuta.io changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2020-08-31 20:59:26 -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872713] Review Request: atinout - AT commands as input are sent to modem and responses given as output
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872713 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/atinout -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872713] Review Request: atinout - AT commands as input are sent to modem and responses given as output
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872713 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin --- LGTM, package approved. -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872713] Review Request: atinout - AT commands as input are sent to modem and responses given as output
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872713 --- Comment #4 from sorensen...@tuta.io --- Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/fedora-mobile/atinout/-/raw/master/atinout.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/njha/mobile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01640697-atinout/atinout-0.9.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Successful build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/njha/mobile/build/1640697/ Thanks for the review! I addressed all the issues, however the CFLAGS still needed a version flag in order to build, so in the Makefile I patched it to only set the version using `+=` so now it includes all the CFLAGS from fedora still. -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872713] Review Request: atinout - AT commands as input are sent to modem and responses given as output
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872713
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- The DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT is included in the macro already:
%make_install
- Not needed, it is the default:
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
- Patch the makefile so that Fedora CFLAGS and LDFLAGS aren't overridden by:
CFLAGS = -W -Wall -Wextra -Werror \
-DVERSION=\"$(VERSION)\" \
-g
LDFLAGS =
Actually just remove these lines entirely so they don't interfere with our
flags.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or
later". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /home/bob/packaging/review/atinout/review-atinout/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 3 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 %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[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]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[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
[Bug 1872713] Review Request: atinout - AT commands as input are sent to modem and responses given as output
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872713 --- Comment #2 from sorensen...@tuta.io --- Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/fedora-mobile/atinout/-/raw/master/atinout.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/njha/mobile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01637157-atinout/atinout-0.9.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Successful build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/njha/mobile/build/1637157/ Description: Atinout is a program that reads a list of AT commands. It sends those commands one by one to the modem, waiting for the final result code for the currently executing command before continuing with the next command in the list. The output from the commands is captured. Fedora Account System Username: torbuntu Thank you for the review! I believe I have addressed the issues. -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872713] Review Request: atinout - AT commands as input are sent to modem and responses given as output
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872713
Artur Iwicki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fed...@svgames.pl
--- Comment #1 from Artur Iwicki ---
> Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/fedora-mobile/atinout/-/blob/master/atinout.spec
This link leads to a syntax-highlighted HTML rendition of the spec. Please use
"raw file" links.
> Patch0:0001-disable-fallthrough.patch
Add a comment explaining what the patch does.
>%autosetup -p1 -n atinout-%{version}
%{name}-%{version} is the default value for -n, you can omit it.
>%build
>make all %{?_smp_mflags}
1. Use the %make_build macro.
2. Call the %set_build_flags macro before calling make.
>%install
>%makeinstall DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
The %makeinstall macro is deprecated. Consider using %make_install instead.
>%clean
>rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Don't do this.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections
>%files
>%doc %{_mandir}/man1/atinout.1.gz
1. Man pages should not be marked as %doc.
2. Do not assume that man pages will be gzipped. Use a wildcard that can match
any compression method (including no compression at all).
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages
>%doc README atinout.1.html gplv3.txt logo/atinout.svg
"gplv3.txt" should be marked as "%license", not "%doc".
--
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872713] Review Request: atinout - AT commands as input are sent to modem and responses given as output
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872713 sorensen...@tuta.io changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|unspecified |medium Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
