[Bug 459945] Review Request: pfstmo - PFS tone mapping operators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459945 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459945] Review Request: pfstmo - PFS tone mapping operators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459945 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-09 02:58:35 EDT --- pfstmo-1.3.2-5.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pfstmo-1.3.2-5.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459945] Review Request: pfstmo - PFS tone mapping operators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459945 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-09 02:58:39 EDT --- pfstmo-1.3.2-5.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pfstmo-1.3.2-5.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459945] Review Request: pfstmo - PFS tone mapping operators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459945 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ Bug 459945 depends on bug 459944, which changed state. Bug 459944 Summary: Review Request: pfstools - Programs for handling high-dynamic range images https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459944 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #13 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-01-09 00:43:22 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459945] Review Request: pfstmo - PFS tone mapping operators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459945 --- Comment #3 from Ulrich Drepper drep...@redhat.com 2009-01-06 03:43:51 EDT --- Please review this. pfstools is now in Fedora. It is a prerequisite for this package and pfstools alone isn't really useful without pfscalibration and pfstmo. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459945] Review Request: pfstmo - PFS tone mapping operators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459945
manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-06
09:49:51 EDT ---
Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz is
not correct, the correct one is
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/pfstools/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Changelog is a incorrect, given that the package is 1.3.2-1
The rest seems OK, wait for a full review in a while
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459945] Review Request: pfstmo - PFS tone mapping operators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459945
--- Comment #5 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-06
10:01:10 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:
pfstmo.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.3-1 ['1.3.2-1.fc11',
'1.3.2-1']
= see note 1
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[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.
License type: GPLv2+
[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 %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[!] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: 8662863c5bd3acdfb83eeef26b6ff5907b5531ec
pfstmo-1.3.2.tar.gz
= Source0 is incorrect, see Note 2
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Final provides and requires are sane.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[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.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on:
[?] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] %check is present and the test passes.
=== Final Notes ===
1. correct changelog should mention version 1.3.2-1
2. Source0 should be
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/pfstools/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
3. Timestamps of manual pages are not preserved
please fix the above problems and we are good to go
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459945] Review Request: pfstmo - PFS tone mapping operators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459945 --- Comment #6 from Ulrich Drepper drep...@redhat.com 2009-01-06 14:34:02 EDT --- I have no idea what you want the man page handling to look like. It's done like in every other package I know. The rest is fixed and I fixed a few problems in the code itself. New files, same name: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/drepper/pfstmo.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/drepper/pfstmo-1.3.2-1.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459945] Review Request: pfstmo - PFS tone mapping operators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459945 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-06 15:02:46 EDT --- Just use make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL=install -p and you will notice that the packaged man pages will change from: -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 600 Jan 6 16:38 /usr/share/man/man1/pfstmo_drago03.1.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 808 Jan 6 16:38 /usr/share/man/man1/pfstmo_durand02.1.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1232 Jan 6 16:38 /usr/share/man/man1/pfstmo_fattal02.1.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1440 Jan 6 16:38 /usr/share/man/man1/pfstmo_mantiuk06.1.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 4087 Jan 6 16:38 /usr/share/man/man1/pfstmo_mantiuk08.1.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1123 Jan 6 16:38 /usr/share/man/man1/pfstmo_pattanaik00.1.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 904 Jan 6 16:38 /usr/share/man/man1/pfstmo_reinhard02.1.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 665 Jan 6 16:38 /usr/share/man/man1/pfstmo_reinhard05.1.gz to -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 600 Jun 9 2006 /usr/share/man/man1/pfstmo_drago03.1.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 808 Sep 9 20:55 /usr/share/man/man1/pfstmo_durand02.1.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1232 Jul 11 2007 /usr/share/man/man1/pfstmo_fattal02.1.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1440 Jun 17 2008 /usr/share/man/man1/pfstmo_mantiuk06.1.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 4087 Aug 22 20:51 /usr/share/man/man1/pfstmo_mantiuk08.1.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1123 Jun 14 2007 /usr/share/man/man1/pfstmo_pattanaik00.1.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 904 Jun 14 2007 /usr/share/man/man1/pfstmo_reinhard02.1.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 665 Jun 14 2007 /usr/share/man/man1/pfstmo_reinhard05.1.gz In the future, please be as kind as to increase the release tag each time you modify the spec Package APPROVED (I'll trust you to modify the make install line before commit) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459945] Review Request: pfstmo - PFS tone mapping operators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459945 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-06 15:10:12 EDT --- Sorry, I have just noticed one little problem. During the build process, the fedora's default gcc -O2 is replaced by gcc -O3 Would you please fix the Makefile ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459945] Review Request: pfstmo - PFS tone mapping operators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459945
--- Comment #9 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-06
15:14:32 EDT ---
Actually I think that the solution is to patch configure (notice the last line
below):
# Check whether --enable-debug was given.
if test ${enable_debug+set} = set; then
enableval=$enable_debug; if test $enable_debug = yes ; then
temp_CXXFLAGS=`echo $CXXFLAGS | sed s/-O./ /; s/-g//`
CXXFLAGS=-g $temp_CXXFLAGS
cat confdefs.h \_ACEOF
#define DEBUG 1
_ACEOF
fi
else
enable_debug=no
temp_CXXFLAGS=`echo $CXXFLAGS | sed s/-O./ /; s/-g//`
CXXFLAGS=-O3 $temp_CXXFLAGS
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459945] Review Request: pfstmo - PFS tone mapping operators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459945 --- Comment #10 from Ulrich Drepper drep...@redhat.com 2009-01-06 15:25:08 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) Sorry, I have just noticed one little problem. During the build process, the fedora's default gcc -O2 is replaced by gcc -O3 Would you please fix the Makefile ? This is no problem. All the other flags are preserved. This is code which can benefit from the additional optimization -O3 provides. Things would be different of the security mechanisms etc are turned off. But they aren't. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459945] Review Request: pfstmo - PFS tone mapping operators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459945 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-06 18:47:20 EDT --- Well, Lubomir on IRC seems to agree with you, although I have a different opinion APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459945] Review Request: pfstmo - PFS tone mapping operators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459945 Ulrich Drepper drep...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Ulrich Drepper drep...@redhat.com 2009-01-06 21:43:17 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: pfstmo Short Description: PFS tone mapping operators Owners: drep...@redhat.com Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459945] Review Request: pfstmo - PFS tone mapping operators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459945 --- Comment #2 from Ulrich Drepper drep...@redhat.com 2009-01-02 18:34:27 EDT --- I've updated the code to the latest upstream version. Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/drepper/pfstmo.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/drepper/pfstmo-1.3.2-1.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459945] Review Request: pfstmo - PFS tone mapping operators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459945 Lucian Langa [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Depends on||459944 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459945] Review Request: pfstmo - PFS tone mapping operators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459945 Ulrich Drepper [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Customer Facing||--- --- Comment #1 from Ulrich Drepper [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-03 10:28:00 EDT --- Anybody going to volunteer? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
