[Bug 1107422] Review Request: octomap - Efficient Probabilistic 3D Mapping Framework Based on Octrees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107422 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||octomap-1.6.6-4.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-07-15 21:59:23 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- octomap-1.6.6-4.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1107422] Review Request: octomap - Efficient Probabilistic 3D Mapping Framework Based on Octrees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107422 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- octomap-1.6.6-4.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1107422] Review Request: octomap - Efficient Probabilistic 3D Mapping Framework Based on Octrees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107422 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1107422] Review Request: octomap - Efficient Probabilistic 3D Mapping Framework Based on Octrees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107422 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- octomap-1.6.6-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1107422] Review Request: octomap - Efficient Probabilistic 3D Mapping Framework Based on Octrees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107422 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1107422] Review Request: octomap - Efficient Probabilistic 3D Mapping Framework Based on Octrees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107422 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1107422] Review Request: octomap - Efficient Probabilistic 3D Mapping Framework Based on Octrees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107422 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1107422] Review Request: octomap - Efficient Probabilistic 3D Mapping Framework Based on Octrees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107422 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- octomap-1.6.6-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/octomap-1.6.6-3.fc20 -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1107422] Review Request: octomap - Efficient Probabilistic 3D Mapping Framework Based on Octrees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107422
Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net ---
(In reply to Rich Mattes from comment #4)
As far as the github url, the reasoning is explained in
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/233. Indeed, the versioned URL like the
one you proposed was considered, but since github's releases are really
just git tags, which are mutable, they found it was better to just point to
a specific commit then to rely on github's 'release' archive generation.
I didn't know about this so far.
Anyway:
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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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:
BSD (3 clause), GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), GPL
(unversioned/unknown version) GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated.
39 files have unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/cmake(cmake)
[x]: %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.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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 %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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 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 do not use a name that already exist
[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 =
[Bug 1107422] Review Request: octomap - Efficient Probabilistic 3D Mapping Framework Based on Octrees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107422 Rich Mattes richmat...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Rich Mattes richmat...@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review, I appreciate it! I'll make sure to add the bug number to the spec before importing. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: octomap Short Description: Efficient Probabilistic 3D Mapping Framework Based on Octrees Upstream URL: http://octomap.github.io/ Owners: rmattes Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC: cottsay -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1107422] Review Request: octomap - Efficient Probabilistic 3D Mapping Framework Based on Octrees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107422 --- Comment #4 from Rich Mattes richmat...@gmail.com --- I gave the sbindir thing a try. It currently works but there were some mailing list threads a while back where there was a mismatch betwene the /usr/sbin/ldconfig that the specs use, and the /sbin/ldconfig that ends up in the glibc package's Provides. It does seem to work here, so I'll keep it unless there's an issue. As far as the github url, the reasoning is explained in https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/233. Indeed, the versioned URL like the one you proposed was considered, but since github's releases are really just git tags, which are mutable, they found it was better to just point to a specific commit then to rely on github's 'release' archive generation. Anyway, updates can be found here: Spec URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/octomap/octomap.spec SRPM URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/octomap/octomap-1.6.6-3.fc20.src.rpm The rpmlint: $ rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/octomap-* ../RPMS/x86_64/dynamic-edt-3d-* ../RPMS/noarch/octomap-doc-1.6.6-3.fc20.noarch.rpm ./octomap.spec octomap.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US octree - trochee octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bt2vrml octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary binvox2bt octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary log2graph octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary convert_octree octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary graph2tree octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary edit_octree octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary compare_octrees octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary eval_octree_accuracy octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/include/octovis/OcTreeDrawer.h octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/src/SceneObject.cpp octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/include/octovis/ViewerWidget.h octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/include/octovis/ViewerSettings.h octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/src/CameraFollowMode.cpp octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/src/SelectionBox.cpp octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/src/OcTreeDrawer.cpp octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/include/octovis/OcTreeRecord.h octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/include/octovis/CameraFollowMode.h octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/include/octovis/TrajectoryDrawer.h octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/src/ViewerSettings.cpp octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/src/TrajectoryDrawer.cpp octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/include/octovis/PointcloudDrawer.h octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/src/ViewerSettingsPanel.cpp octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/src/ViewerSettingsPanelCamera.cpp octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/include/octovis/ColorOcTreeDrawer.h octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/include/octovis/SelectionBox.h octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/src/ViewerGui.cpp octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/include/octovis/ViewerSettingsPanel.h octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/src/main.cpp octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/src/ColorOcTreeDrawer.cpp octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
[Bug 1107422] Review Request: octomap - Efficient Probabilistic 3D Mapping Framework Based on Octrees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107422
--- Comment #3 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net ---
(In reply to Rich Mattes from comment #2)
I've addressed the following:
* Add more detailed descriptions
* Add versioned Requires where available
* Added comments about license breakdown and patch status
* Fixed package ownership issues
* Fixed bugs with breaking the libraries up into separate packages
Looks quite good so far :-)
There's a couple of things I'm not sure about:
* The source URL (derived from the commit hash) is needed as per the github
packaging guidelines at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github. I think the
problem with the github releases is that they're based on tags, which are
mutable
Since the commit revision hash in your spec-file is the same commit revision
hash that tags version 1.6.6 upstream, it's much easier to use just the
following:
Source0:
https://github.com/OctoMap/%{name}/releases/tag/v%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
If you package a non-tagged version I totally agree with you.
As the your links says:
If the upstream does create tarballs you should use them as tarballs
provide an easier trail for people auditing the packages.
* The ldconfig snippets in post and postun follow the guidelines at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shared_Libraries, I
don't think there needs to be a macro for sbindir (which expands to
/usr/sbin, not /sbin)
I recommend to use macros everywhere it's possible.
You never know how people change/map/unmap their system. Using macros you are
well prepared (even it's not yet in the snippet).
--
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1107422] Review Request: octomap - Efficient Probabilistic 3D Mapping Framework Based on Octrees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107422 --- Comment #2 from Rich Mattes richmat...@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review! I've addressed the following: * Add more detailed descriptions * Add versioned Requires where available * Added comments about license breakdown and patch status * Fixed package ownership issues * Fixed bugs with breaking the libraries up into separate packages There's a couple of things I'm not sure about: * The source URL (derived from the commit hash) is needed as per the github packaging guidelines at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github. I think the problem with the github releases is that they're based on tags, which are mutable * The ldconfig snippets in post and postun follow the guidelines at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shared_Libraries, I don't think there needs to be a macro for sbindir (which expands to /usr/sbin, not /sbin) With that, here are the updated packages: Spec URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/octomap/octomap.spec SRPM URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/octomap/octomap-1.6.6-2.fc20.src.rpm $ rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/octomap-* ../RPMS/x86_64/dynamic-edt-3d-* ../RPMS/noarch/octomap-doc-1.6.6-2.fc20.noarch.rpm ./octomap.spec octomap.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US octree - trochee octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bt2vrml octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary binvox2bt octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary log2graph octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary convert_octree octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary graph2tree octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary edit_octree octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary compare_octrees octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary eval_octree_accuracy octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/include/octovis/OcTreeDrawer.h octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/src/SceneObject.cpp octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/include/octovis/ViewerWidget.h octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/include/octovis/ViewerSettings.h octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/src/CameraFollowMode.cpp octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/src/SelectionBox.cpp octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/src/OcTreeDrawer.cpp octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/include/octovis/OcTreeRecord.h octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/include/octovis/CameraFollowMode.h octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/include/octovis/TrajectoryDrawer.h octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/src/ViewerSettings.cpp octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/src/TrajectoryDrawer.cpp octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/include/octovis/PointcloudDrawer.h octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/src/ViewerSettingsPanel.cpp octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/src/ViewerSettingsPanelCamera.cpp octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/include/octovis/ColorOcTreeDrawer.h octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/include/octovis/SelectionBox.h octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/src/ViewerGui.cpp octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/include/octovis/ViewerSettingsPanel.h octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/src/main.cpp octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/octomap-6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octovis/src/ColorOcTreeDrawer.cpp octomap-debuginfo.x86_64: E:
[Bug 1107422] Review Request: octomap - Efficient Probabilistic 3D Mapping Framework Based on Octrees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107422
Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d...@der-flo.net
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@der-flo.net
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net ---
Issues
==
[ ]: Please add some words to the subpackages instead of using just %{summary}
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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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:
BSD (3 clause), GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), GPL
(unversioned/unknown version) GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
--- please add a comment where the breakdown is
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/octovis,
/usr/lib64/cmake
--- please add something like mkdir -p {_bindir}/octovis and
mkdir -p %{_datadir}/octovis to the %install-section
[x]: %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.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
--- Please replace /sbin with %{_sbindir}
[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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
--- There are some issues.
Please fix those issues and I'll take another review.
[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 %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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 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 do not use a name that already exist
[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
[Bug 1107422] Review Request: octomap - Efficient Probabilistic 3D Mapping Framework Based on Octrees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107422 Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
