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@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Christopher Howard <christopher@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@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).
>