[Bug 1490057] Review Request: cloudcompare - 3D point cloud and mesh processing software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490057

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2018-03-06 12:24:40



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
cloudcompare-2.9.1-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
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

[Bug 1490057] Review Request: cloudcompare - 3D point cloud and mesh processing software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490057

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|ON_QA



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
cloudcompare-2.9.1-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-f008ca833c

-- 
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

[Bug 1490057] Review Request: cloudcompare - 3D point cloud and mesh processing software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490057



--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cloudcompare

-- 
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

[Bug 1490057] Review Request: cloudcompare - 3D point cloud and mesh processing software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490057



--- Comment #7 from Miro Hrončok  ---
Thank you!

BTW Upstream is trying to fix the issues so this might not need the exclude BE
arches after all.

-- 
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

[Bug 1490057] Review Request: cloudcompare - 3D point cloud and mesh processing software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490057

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Seems good to me, 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

[Bug 1490057] Review Request: cloudcompare - 3D point cloud and mesh processing software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490057



--- Comment #5 from Miro Hrončok  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #4)
>  - These shouldn't have executable bits, it should be 0644:
> 
> cloudcompare-debugsource.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
> /usr/src/debug/cloudcompare-2.9.1-1.fc27.x86_64/plugins/qHoughNormals/
> nanoflann/include/nanoflann.hpp
> cloudcompare-debugsource.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
> /usr/src/debug/cloudcompare-2.9.1-1.fc27.x86_64/plugins/qHoughNormals/
> normals_Hough/Normals.h

https://github.com/hroncok/cloudcompare/commit/d4e6e87c206637ccdecfbd689a47eda04f76f2cf

> cloudcompare.src: W: strange-permission ccviewer.desktop 755
> cloudcompare.src: W: strange-permission cloudcompare.desktop 755

https://github.com/hroncok/cloudcompare/commit/f00fca40c4062ded55f62727d4568654babc342b


Spec URL: https://github.com/hroncok/cloudcompare/raw/master/cloudcompare.spec
SRPM URL:
https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/cloudcompare-2.9.1-1.fc27.src.rpm

Again, the SRPM gets uploaded slowly, ETA ~15 minutes.

-- 
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

[Bug 1490057] Review Request: cloudcompare - 3D point cloud and mesh processing software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490057

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - These shouldn't have executable bits, it should be 0644:

cloudcompare-debugsource.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/cloudcompare-2.9.1-1.fc27.x86_64/plugins/qHoughNormals/nanoflann/include/nanoflann.hpp
cloudcompare-debugsource.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/cloudcompare-2.9.1-1.fc27.x86_64/plugins/qHoughNormals/normals_Hough/Normals.h

cloudcompare.src: W: strange-permission ccviewer.desktop 755
cloudcompare.src: W: strange-permission cloudcompare.desktop 755

   Fix it in prep for the first two and notify upstream. For the .desktop file
make sure the file perm are 0644 when you build your SRPM.

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]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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: "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)",
 "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Apache (v1.1)",
 "zlib/libpng", "LGPL", "GPL (v2) LGPL (v2 or later)", "BSD
 (unspecified)", "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2)",
 "LGPL (v2.1)". 865 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/cloudcompare/review-
 cloudcompare/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: 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 163840 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
 desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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 

[Bug 1490057] Review Request: cloudcompare - 3D point cloud and mesh processing software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490057



--- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok  ---
Let's get back to this :D

Spec URL: https://github.com/hroncok/cloudcompare/raw/master/cloudcompare.spec
SRPM URL:
https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/cloudcompare-2.9.1-1.fc27.src.rpm

(ETA 15 minutes to upload the SRPM, it's somehow slow.)

Changes in https://github.com/hroncok/cloudcompare/commits/master

F27 scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25238489

I have some (most likely unrelated) deps issues in f28+ now.

-- 
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

[Bug 1490057] Review Request: cloudcompare - 3D point cloud and mesh processing software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490057



--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok  ---
Thanks for the feedback!

-- 
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

[Bug 1490057] Review Request: cloudcompare - 3D point cloud and mesh processing software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490057

Robert-André Mauchin (afk until Mon 11)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin (afk until Mon 11)  
---
Hello,

 - You can use these URL as SourceX:

Source0:   
https://github.com/%{cname}/%{cname}/archive/v%{version}/%{cname}-%{version}.tar.gz

# git submodules
%global pr_commit 7ad96383f639d7625a843c6e97b3ae5579507350
Source1:   
https://github.com/%{cname}/PoissonRecon/archive/%{pr_commit}/PoissonRecon-%{pr_commit}.tar.gz

%global nh_commit 61ba8056d72eedffadb838d9051cc8975ec7a825
Source2:   
https://github.com/%{cname}/normals_Hough/archive/%{nh_commit}/normals_Hough-%{nh_commit}.tar.gz

 - You should use the %make_install macro instead of make DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
install %{?_smp_mflags}

 - Similarly use %make_build instead of make %{?_smp_mflags}

 - The documentation is rather big, it should go in a -doc subpackage.

 - Since you are installing icons into hicolor, you must add:

Requires:   hicolor-icon-theme

 for directory ownership.

  - Package fails to build on multiple architectures:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21793708



Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
  (~1MB) or number of files.
  Note: Documentation size is 15974400 bytes in 5 files.
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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: "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)",
 "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Apache (v1.1)",
 "zlib/libpng", "LGPL", "GPL (v2) LGPL (v2 or later)", "BSD
 (unspecified)", "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2)".
 834 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/cloudcompare/review-
 cloudcompare/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners:
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32
[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.
[-]: 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]: update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package
 contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry.
 Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in cloudcompare
[x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
 contains icons.
 Note: icons in cloudcompare
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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