Re: ossim-1.8.16 - request for review
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:47:27PM +0100, Markus Wanner wrote: Frankie, as recently discussed on IRC, I took a stab at upgrading ossim to a current release. Attached is a patch against the svn repo (do I have commit access to that, given that IIRC I'm a member of pkg-grass-devel?). Please review and comment whether or not you agree with the general direction. Some comments and lose ends: - lintian complains about hardening issues, looks like I don't properly pass the LDFLAGS through cmake, yet. - I dropped the static library build for now. How important is that? - ossim-config isn't built, anymore, nor is there an ossim.pc (for pkg-config) Next release of Orfeo Toolbox will be more nice on those regards, it will be linkable with Debian ITK and Ossim, instead of using its embedded copies. The static lib currently is something provided if available. Is there some problems in generating the static flavor? - I didn't do any testing of the resulting library or utilities, but am happy it builds at all, for now. Which is something good at this stage. I'm not sure if a testing suite is available as in the GDAL case, it is out of question thinking to test individually all utilities. -- Francesco P. Lovergine ___ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
Re: ossim-1.8.16 - request for review
On 01/30/2014 09:32 AM, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: Next release of Orfeo Toolbox will be more nice on those regards, it will be linkable with Debian ITK and Ossim, instead of using its embedded copies. Cool. The static lib currently is something provided if available. Is there some problems in generating the static flavor? Not technically. But it involves some more fiddling with debian/rules and cmake to actually build the library twice. I'm not sure how to accomplish that, yet. Pointers to existing examples are very welcome. Which is something good at this stage. I'm not sure if a testing suite is available as in the GDAL case, it is out of question thinking to test individually all utilities. Agreed. As a side-note: I put some effort into ossim because I thought it blocks the openscenegraph transition. I didn't realize ossim was already removed from testing. And the transition doesn't appear to be blocked by ossim anymore, all of a sudden. I'm sorry to say, but overall, this likely means that this is a one-time effort - something that should be considered before re-introducing ossim into testing. Regards Markus signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
Re: ossim-1.8.16 - request for review
Bas, On 01/30/2014 12:17 AM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: You're a member of the pkg-grass team, and you should therefor have commit access to both the Git and SVN repos. Okay, cool. Most of the Debian GIS packages are maintain in Git now, OSSIM is one of the few remaining package still in SVN. Would you be willing to move the OSSIM package from SVN to Git? Yeah, why not... Please review and comment whether or not you agree with the general direction. If I may propose a wishlist item, move from CDBS to dh for more uniformity with the other Debian GIS packages. Ehm... the patch already does that. It's one of the general direction questions I'm unsure about. But if you guys happen to like dh better as well, it's all fine. It's probably sufficient to add CPPFLAGS to CFLAGS in debian/rules to have the build use -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2, which I assume is the hardening issue lintian reports. Oh, yeah, CPPFLAGS somehow got lost. My bad. Initializing CPPFLAGS from dpkg-buildflags works. Thanks for the hint. It's a good thing it builds, nice work! Thanks Markus signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
Re: ossim-1.8.16 - request for review
Hi Markus, On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:05:01AM +0100, Markus Wanner wrote: Would you be willing to move the OSSIM package from SVN to Git? Yeah, why not... ... In case you are finished with the migration to Git and are happy with the packaging and you are looking for a sponsor you might be interested in https://wiki.debian.org/DebianPureBlends/SoB Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de ___ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
Re: ossim-1.8.16 - request for review
Hi, On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 09:51:37AM +0100, Markus Wanner wrote: The static lib currently is something provided if available. Is there some problems in generating the static flavor? Not technically. But it involves some more fiddling with debian/rules and cmake to actually build the library twice. I'm not sure how to accomplish that, yet. Pointers to existing examples are very welcome. I do not know a specific example but directing questions like this to debian-ment...@lists.debian.org has proven to be quite successful in the past if any specific mailing list does find a clue. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de ___ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
Re: ossim-1.8.16 - request for review
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi Markus, Thanks for working on the OSSIM package! On 01/29/2014 10:47 PM, Markus Wanner wrote: as recently discussed on IRC, I took a stab at upgrading ossim to a current release. Attached is a patch against the svn repo (do I have commit access to that, given that IIRC I'm a member of pkg-grass-devel?). You're a member of the pkg-grass team, and you should therefor have commit access to both the Git and SVN repos. Most of the Debian GIS packages are maintain in Git now, OSSIM is one of the few remaining package still in SVN. Would you be willing to move the OSSIM package from SVN to Git? Please review and comment whether or not you agree with the general direction. If I may propose a wishlist item, move from CDBS to dh for more uniformity with the other Debian GIS packages. Some comments and lose ends: - lintian complains about hardening issues, looks like I don't properly pass the LDFLAGS through cmake, yet. It's probably sufficient to add CPPFLAGS to CFLAGS in debian/rules to have the build use -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2, which I assume is the hardening issue lintian reports. lintian uses hardening-check to verify the hardening flags, and the hardening-no-fortify-functions check has some false-positives. If that's the case you can add a lintian override with the comment containing the hardening-check verbose output, e.g.: # -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 is used during build, but hardening-check reports: # Fortify Source functions: yes (some protected functions found) #unprotected: memset #protected: sprintf - I dropped the static library build for now. How important is that? - ossim-config isn't built, anymore, nor is there an ossim.pc (for pkg-config) I'm not sure about the above. Hopefully Francesco can shed some more light on this. - I didn't do any testing of the resulting library or utilities, but am happy it builds at all, for now. It's a good thing it builds, nice work! There don't seem to be any reverse dependencies in Debian that need to be taken into account. Maybe we have some users of OSSIM lurking on debian-gis@ or subscribed to the PTS that may be able to help you get some real world tests of your updated package. Kind Regards, Bas - -- GnuPG: 0xE88D4AF1 (new) / 0x77A975AD (old) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJS6YwRAAoJEGdQ8QrojUrxKCgP/R+z/jDHRQXasfbLLg+Nsh4p vPlRrzAfGP+AuaaHh8WMnLNe1PRQP1TLfoKXFSzA+WchnCh6p63MPTiDwgXEMq74 5Q0KNMB6yRM6ozoPw/vZ5nC0TvDqnb2zVumpjKW8huP8MQcye8ngarsSHh0OFEyw moDnc3DV7A+B2R+6bE85xyArZB+6Am9fuMyRmC3nxTiuM8gVLZOvlYmfBH8iQfs9 ompuGDg5SWS1hpd2TLRuAvmmq7JRaOsuD2/uI0oHggFVLdY/qXUZnflqfIMVFG1/ 8Rnn3ycmOq1Tz0ZD2lCVbVyAqaq9VHDTTaGE3HX03V02/Lm72oFBci8YXRCEVl4C t3du31fU4sNuVP+RkkwE+tjmryvfdaKPulbG8kqFxyt5cdPaChvUyTi0cTmVHpEC Fthmyn1DWOif8pHRe2zJ+lu6g+RVPIG7RMLb3uE4sZCyuquWHLxLUSe7RDcEpjKa pOm0AgND2udaoEXGe1K3Bxr/HoqB/UVNBcslO6Jd2gWdsSHZ/4hVVSGHx00GURNG 4Cz8OFzTkia0iGv8AUMATtINsnwPqG75eylYm920ePCwDqh9jgBmXmVio/Ms8jFS HJQFuHJjYstfCz/A3qNXxf+mQPaah5JO7WX75oFpEH+v9JzDbcVpDmlJ0SAP8jJH Hd4zPHZEbQS3W8HUbYLE =CJ9l -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
