GNU bug report logs - #38865
[PATCH] add package definition for liquid-dsp-1.3.2

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 38865 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 38865 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Howard <christopher <at> librehacker.com>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH]  add package definition for liquid-dsp-1.3.2
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2020 20:05:02 -0900

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Patch is attached for a new package definition. It passed all guix lint
checks, except that I received an error from guix lint that it could
not find the CVE json URL. Package builds and passes all tests on x86-
64.

-- 
Christopher Howard
p: +1 (907) 374-0257
w: https://librehacker.com
social: https://gnusocial.club/librehacker
gpg: ADDEAADE5D607C8D (keys.gnupg.net)

[0001-Adds-new-package-liquid-dsp.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #8 received at 38865 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Christopher Howard <christopher <at> librehacker.com>
Cc: 38865 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#38865] [PATCH]  add package definition for liquid-dsp-1.3.2
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 23:21:00 +0100

Hi,

Christopher Howard <christopher <at> librehacker.com> skribis:

> Patch is attached for a new package definition. It passed all guix lint
> checks, except that I received an error from guix lint that it could
> not find the CVE json URL. Package builds and passes all tests on x86-
> 64.

Oh, the CVE error is weird; could you paste it?

> From 3c8ccf400dbbf23191b958dfdcef986d1927719c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Christopher Howard <christopher <at> librehacker.com>
> Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2020 19:58:25 -0900
> Subject: [PATCH] Adds new package liquid-dsp
>
> ---
>  gnu/packages/liquid-dsp.scm | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Could you provide a commit log?  (See
<https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/html_node/Submitting-Patches.html>.)

Overall the patch LGTM; minor comments:

> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gnu/packages/liquid-dsp.scm

Packages are usually grouped together in a file that reflect the
category they belong to.  Would it make sense to call this file
‘sdr.scm’, and it would eventually include other packages related to
software-defined ratio, or perhaps dsp.scm?

> +(define-public liquid-dsp
> +  (package
> +    (name "liquid-dsp")
> +    (version "1.3.2")
> +    (source
> +     (origin (method git-fetch)
> +             (uri (git-reference
> +                   (url (string-append "https://github.com/jgaeddert/liquid-dsp.git"))

No need for ‘string-append’ here.  :-)

> +    (synopsis "Signal processing library for software-defined radios written in C")

I’d dropped “written in C” from the synopsis.

> +    (description
> +     "Liquid DSP provides a set of extensible DSP modules that do not
                                                 ^
Please write: “@dfn{digital signal processing} (DSP) modules”, for clarity.

> +rely on external dependencies or cumbersome frameworks")

Please add a period at the end.  Bonus point if you can expound a bit.

Could you send an updated patch?

Thank you!

Ludo’.

Message #11 received at 38865 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Brett Gilio <brettg <at> gnu.org>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Christopher Howard <christopher <at> librehacker.com>, evan.straw99 <at> gmail.com,
 38865 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#38865] [PATCH]  add package definition for liquid-dsp-1.3.2
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:57:29 -0600

Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Christopher Howard <christopher <at> librehacker.com> skribis:
>
>> Patch is attached for a new package definition. It passed all guix lint
>> checks, except that I received an error from guix lint that it could
>> not find the CVE json URL. Package builds and passes all tests on x86-
>> 64.
>
> Oh, the CVE error is weird; could you paste it?
>
>> From 3c8ccf400dbbf23191b958dfdcef986d1927719c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Christopher Howard <christopher <at> librehacker.com>
>> Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2020 19:58:25 -0900
>> Subject: [PATCH] Adds new package liquid-dsp
>>
>> ---
>>  gnu/packages/liquid-dsp.scm | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Could you provide a commit log?  (See
> <https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/html_node/Submitting-Patches.html>.)
>
> Overall the patch LGTM; minor comments:
>
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/gnu/packages/liquid-dsp.scm
>
> Packages are usually grouped together in a file that reflect the
> category they belong to.  Would it make sense to call this file
> ‘sdr.scm’, and it would eventually include other packages related to
> software-defined ratio, or perhaps dsp.scm?
>
>> +(define-public liquid-dsp
>> +  (package
>> +    (name "liquid-dsp")
>> +    (version "1.3.2")
>> +    (source
>> +     (origin (method git-fetch)
>> +             (uri (git-reference
>> +                   (url (string-append "https://github.com/jgaeddert/liquid-dsp.git"))
>
> No need for ‘string-append’ here.  :-)
>
>> +    (synopsis "Signal processing library for software-defined radios written in C")
>
> I’d dropped “written in C” from the synopsis.
>
>> +    (description
>> +     "Liquid DSP provides a set of extensible DSP modules that do not
>                                                  ^
> Please write: “@dfn{digital signal processing} (DSP) modules”, for clarity.
>
>> +rely on external dependencies or cumbersome frameworks")
>
> Please add a period at the end.  Bonus point if you can expound a bit.
>
> Could you send an updated patch?
>
> Thank you!
>
> Ludo’.
>
>
>
>

There is also a liquid-dsp patch in #38842 by Evan Straw (cc).

-- 
Brett M. Gilio
GNU Guix, Contributor | GNU Project, Webmaster
[DFC0 C7F7 9EE6 0CA7 AE55 5E19 6722 43C4 A03F 0EEE]
<brettg <at> gnu.org> <brettg <at> posteo.net>

Message #14 received at 38865 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Howard <christopher <at> librehacker.com>
To: Brett Gilio <brettg <at> gnu.org>, Ludovic Courtès
 <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: evan.straw99 <at> gmail.com, 38865 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#38865] [PATCH]  add package definition for liquid-dsp-1.3.2
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 21:42:54 -0900

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I went ahead and attached the updated patch as originally requested, in
case it is needed. I copied in the description the other uploader had
used since that seemed much better. One difference between my
definition and the other one, is that I include fftw and fftwf as
package inputs. fftw is an optional dependency of liquid-dsp, which I
think does not change the API of liquid-dsp, but does affects the
backend performance.

As far as sdr.scm vs. ham-radio.scm: I am a licensed ham radio operator
(US General Class), but nevertheless SDR and DSP are really not
exclusive to ham radio. Liquid DSP, e.g., could be used in a lot of
non-licensed or commercial-licensed applications (referring to the
frequency license).

-- 
Christopher Howard
p: +1 (907) 374-0257
w: https://librehacker.com
social: https://gnusocial.club/librehacker
gpg: ADDEAADE5D607C8D (keys.gnupg.net)

On Fri, 2020-01-10 at 19:57 -0600, Brett Gilio wrote:
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Christopher Howard <christopher <at> librehacker.com> skribis:
> > 
> > > Patch is attached for a new package definition. It passed all
> > > guix lint
> > > checks, except that I received an error from guix lint that it
> > > could
> > > not find the CVE json URL. Package builds and passes all tests on
> > > x86-
> > > 64.
> > 
> > Oh, the CVE error is weird; could you paste it?
> > 
> > > From 3c8ccf400dbbf23191b958dfdcef986d1927719c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
> > > 2001
> > > From: Christopher Howard <christopher <at> librehacker.com>
> > > Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2020 19:58:25 -0900
> > > Subject: [PATCH] Adds new package liquid-dsp
> > > 
> > > ---
> > >  gnu/packages/liquid-dsp.scm | 53
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 
> > Could you provide a commit log?  (See
> > <
> > https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/html_node/Submitting-Patches.html>
> > ;.)
> > 
> > Overall the patch LGTM; minor comments:
> > 
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/gnu/packages/liquid-dsp.scm
> > 
> > Packages are usually grouped together in a file that reflect the
> > category they belong to.  Would it make sense to call this file
> > ‘sdr.scm’, and it would eventually include other packages related
> > to
> > software-defined ratio, or perhaps dsp.scm?
> > 
> > > +(define-public liquid-dsp
> > > +  (package
> > > +    (name "liquid-dsp")
> > > +    (version "1.3.2")
> > > +    (source
> > > +     (origin (method git-fetch)
> > > +             (uri (git-reference
> > > +                   (url (string-append "
> > > https://github.com/jgaeddert/liquid-dsp.git"))
> > 
> > No need for ‘string-append’ here.  :-)
> > 
> > > +    (synopsis "Signal processing library for software-defined
> > > radios written in C")
> > 
> > I’d dropped “written in C” from the synopsis.
> > 
> > > +    (description
> > > +     "Liquid DSP provides a set of extensible DSP modules that
> > > do not
> >                                                  ^
> > Please write: “@dfn{digital signal processing} (DSP) modules”, for
> > clarity.
> > 
> > > +rely on external dependencies or cumbersome frameworks")
> > 
> > Please add a period at the end.  Bonus point if you can expound a
> > bit.
> > 
> > Could you send an updated patch?
> > 
> > Thank you!
> > 
> > Ludo’.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> There is also a liquid-dsp patch in #38842 by Evan Straw (cc).
> 

[0001-gnu-Add-liquid-dsp.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #19 received at 38865-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Christopher Howard <christopher <at> librehacker.com>
Cc: 38865-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, evan.straw99 <at> gmail.com,
 Brett Gilio <brettg <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [bug#38865] [PATCH]  add package definition for liquid-dsp-1.3.2
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 22:03:55 +0100

Hello,

Christopher Howard <christopher <at> librehacker.com> skribis:

> From 0064c61e7884c6f7d6356dfa22b04279bc460b2a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Christopher Howard <christopher <at> librehacker.com>
> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 21:19:24 -0900
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add liquid-dsp.
>
> * gnu/packages/sdr.scm (liquid-dsp): New variable

Thanks, I’ve added the file to ‘gnu/local.mk’ and committed.

Evan, I hope that’s fine with you!  The changes I noticed between both
patches are: Evan’s did not include a dependency on FFTW, and
Christopher’s lives in sdr.scm while Evan’s in ham-radio.scm.

Evan, let us know if it’s fine for the rest of your patches!

Thanks everyone,
Ludo’.

Message #22 received at 38865-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Evan Straw <evan.straw99 <at> gmail.com>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Christopher Howard <christopher <at> librehacker.com>,
 Brett Gilio <brettg <at> gnu.org>, 38865-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#38865] [PATCH]  add package definition for liquid-dsp-1.3.2
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 22:46:28 +0000 (UTC)

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,
I think the only problem that this will introduce is that my redsea package definition in my third patch depends on the definition for liquid-dsp being in the same file, so an import will have to be added. I can submit a revision for this in a few hours when I get back on my PC, if needed.

--Evan

Jan 15, 2020 1:04:00 PM Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>:

> Hello,
> 
> Christopher Howard <christopher <at> librehacker.com> skribis:
> 
> 
> > From 0064c61e7884c6f7d6356dfa22b04279bc460b2a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Christopher Howard <christopher <at> librehacker.com>
> > Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 21:19:24 -0900
> > Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add liquid-dsp.
> > 
> > * gnu/packages/sdr.scm (liquid-dsp): New variable
> > 
> 
> Thanks, I’ve added the file to ‘gnu/local.mk’ and committed.
> 
> Evan, I hope that’s fine with you! The changes I noticed between both
> patches are: Evan’s did not include a dependency on FFTW, and
> Christopher’s lives in sdr.scm while Evan’s in ham-radio.scm.
> 
> Evan, let us know if it’s fine for the rest of your patches!
> 
> Thanks everyone,
> Ludo’.
> 

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #25 received at 38865-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Evan Straw <evan.straw99 <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Christopher Howard <christopher <at> librehacker.com>,
 Brett Gilio <brettg <at> gnu.org>, 38865-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#38865] [PATCH]  add package definition for liquid-dsp-1.3.2
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 09:59:35 +0100

Hi Evan,

Evan Straw <evan.straw99 <at> gmail.com> skribis:

> I think the only problem that this will introduce is that my redsea package definition in my third patch depends on the definition for liquid-dsp being in the same file, so an import will have to be added. I can submit a revision for this in a few hours when I get back on my PC, if needed.

Sure, no rush.  An option would be to move all your packages to sdr.scm
(“SDR” is a superset of “ham radio”, after all).  WDYT?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Message #28 received at 38865-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Howard <christopher <at> librehacker.com>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>, Evan Straw
 <evan.straw99 <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 38865-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Brett Gilio <brettg <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [bug#38865] [PATCH]  add package definition for liquid-dsp-1.3.2
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 05:49:57 -0900

Most of the things currently in and proposed for ham-radio.scm would
fit also under the category of SDR. The one exception would be the
"chirp" package, which is not precisely an SDR application, but a tool
for reprogramming radios. But it might be close enough to be
practically lumped into that file. Strickly speaking, chirp is not
exclusively a ham radio tool other, but could be used by anyone
commercial or otherwise who needed to reprogram a radio.

-- 
Christopher Howard
p: +1 (907) 374-0257
w: https://librehacker.com
social: https://gnusocial.club/librehacker
gpg: ADDEAADE5D607C8D (keys.gnupg.net)

On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 09:59 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi Evan,
> 
> Evan Straw <evan.straw99 <at> gmail.com> skribis:
> 
> > I think the only problem that this will introduce is that my redsea
> > package definition in my third patch depends on the definition for
> > liquid-dsp being in the same file, so an import will have to be
> > added. I can submit a revision for this in a few hours when I get
> > back on my PC, if needed.
> 
> Sure, no rush.  An option would be to move all your packages to
> sdr.scm
> (“SDR” is a superset of “ham radio”, after all).  WDYT?
> 
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.