[Bug 1907238] New: Review Request: openexr - Provides the specification and reference implementation of the EXR file format

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907238

Bug ID: 1907238
           Summary: Review Request: openexr - Provides the specification
                    and reference implementation of the EXR file format
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
            Status: NEW
         Component: Package Review
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]
  Target Milestone: ---
    Classification: Fedora

Spec URL: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/openexr.spec
SRPM URL: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/openexr-2.5.3-1.fc33.src.rpm

Description:
OpenEXR is a project of the [Academy Software Foundation](https://www.aswf.io).
The format and library were originally developed by Industrial Light & Magic
and first released in 2003.  Weta Digital, Walt Disney Animation Studios, Sony
Pictures Imageworks, Pixar Animation Studios, DreamWorks, and other studios,
companies, and individuals have made contributions to the code base.

This package containes the binaries for OpenEXR.

Fedora Account System Username: hobbes1069

[Bug 1907238] Review Request: openexr - Provides the specification and reference implementation of the EXR file format

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907238

--- Comment #1 from Richard Shaw  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=57378822

[Bug 1907238] Review Request: openexr - Provides the specification and reference implementation of the EXR file format

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907238

Richard Shaw  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Doc Type|---                         |If docs needed, set a value

--- Comment #2 from Richard Shaw  ---
NOTE: Obsoletes will be updated to meet packaging guidelines prior to building
based on current NEVR of OpenEXR and ilmbase.

[Bug 1907238] Review Request: openexr - Provides the specification and reference implementation of the EXR file format

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907238

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
> Description:
> OpenEXR is a project of the [Academy Software
> Foundation](https://www.aswf.io).
> The format and library were originally developed by Industrial Light & Magic
> and first released in 2003.  Weta Digital, Walt Disney Animation Studios,
> Sony
> Pictures Imageworks, Pixar Animation Studios, DreamWorks, and other studios,
> companies, and individuals have made contributions to the code base.

Description + Summary don't actually say what this package and the format are
*for*
(images, video, something else?). Not everybody knows what "EXR" means. Also,
I think the blurb about authors is not interesting for users.

[Bug 1907238] Review Request: openexr - Provides the specification and reference implementation of the EXR file format

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907238

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |POST
           Assignee|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #4 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
> BuildRequires:  cmake gcc gcc-c++

One-per-line is preferred nowadays.
> %{_bindir}/*

Maybe '%{_bindir}/exr*' ? This will make it less likely to something unintended
to slip in on upgrades.

rpmlint:
openexr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US containes -> contained,
contains, containers
> # Is it OK to dump the libraries in site-packages?

It means that the modules 'iex' and 'imath' will be importable in the global
namespace.
It's certainly allowed in general. I think the name is a bit generic in this
case, but
it's not something we have influence over.

+ license is acceptable for Fedora (BSD 3 clause)
+ license is specified correctly
+ builds and installs OK
+ BR and Requires look correct
+ Provides and Obsoletes look correct took

Package is APPROVED.

[Bug 1907238] Review Request: openexr - Provides the specification and reference implementation of the EXR file format

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907238

--- Comment #5 from Richard Shaw  ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #3)
> > Description:
> > OpenEXR is a project of the [Academy Software
> > Foundation](https://www.aswf.io).
> > The format and library were originally developed by Industrial Light & Magic
> > and first released in 2003.  Weta Digital, Walt Disney Animation Studios,
> > Sony
> > Pictures Imageworks, Pixar Animation Studios, DreamWorks, and other studios,
> > companies, and individuals have made contributions to the code base.
>
> Description + Summary don't actually say what this package and the format
> are *for*
> (images, video, something else?). Not everybody knows what "EXR" means. Also,
> I think the blurb about authors is not interesting for users.

Yeah, I copied that and a lot more from the README. I may borrow from the
current OpenEXR package.
> > %{_bindir}/*
>
> Maybe '%{_bindir}/exr*' ? This will make it less likely to something
> unintended to slip in on upgrades.
>
> rpmlint:
> openexr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US containes -> contained,
> contains, containers

Since I copied it straight from their readme I guess I should let them know :)
> > # Is it OK to dump the libraries in site-packages?
>
> It means that the modules 'iex' and 'imath' will be importable in the global
> namespace.
> It's certainly allowed in general. I think the name is a bit generic in this
> case, but
> it's not something we have influence over.

Most dedicated python packages that I maintain put them in a named subdirectory
but yeah, I looked in my system and there's lots of packages that dump them
right in site-packages.
> license is acceptable for Fedora (BSD 3 clause)
> license is specified correctly
> builds and installs OK
> BR and Requires look correct
> Provides and Obsoletes look correct took
>
> Package is APPROVED.

Thanks!

[Bug 1907238] Review Request: openexr - Provides the specification and reference implementation of the EXR file format

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907238

--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/openexr

[Bug 1907238] Review Request: openexr - Provides the specification and reference implementation of the EXR file format

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907238

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|POST                        |CLOSED
         Resolution|---                         |ERRATA
        Last Closed|                            |2021-01-02 18:04:05

--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2021-6229d3d205 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

[Bug 1907238] Review Request: openexr - Provides the specification and reference implementation of the EXR file format

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907238

Josef Ridky  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
              Flags|                            |needinfo?(hobbes1069@gmail.
                   |                            |com)

--- Comment #8 from Josef Ridky  ---
Is there any difference between your package and
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/OpenEXR, which is in Fedora for 3+ years?
(and not counting, this version has newer NVR)

[Bug 1907238] Review Request: openexr - Provides the specification and reference implementation of the EXR file format

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907238

Josef Ridky  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|needinfo?(hobbes1069@gmail. |
                   |com)                        |

--- Comment #9 from Josef Ridky  ---
Please, ignore my previous comment, I've just hit the origin message on fedora
devel list. All good now.

[Bug 1907238] Review Request: openexr - Provides the specification and reference implementation of the EXR file format

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907238

Tom Hughes  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #10 from Tom Hughes  ---
I'm not sure why Josef retracted his comment because it this does indeed appear
to be a duplicate of the existing OpenEXR package and even if it wasn't the
same software packages whose names differ only in case are not allowed:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicti...

If the intention was to retire OpenEXR in favour of this then that does not
appear to have happened as both are still live currently:

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/OpenEXR
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/openexr

[Bug 1907238] Review Request: openexr - Provides the specification and reference implementation of the EXR file format

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907238

--- Comment #11 from Richard Shaw  ---
Yes, OpenEXR should be retired.

[Bug 1907238] Review Request: openexr - Provides the specification and reference implementation of the EXR file format

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907238

--- Comment #12 from Josef Ridky  ---
Well, it's true, that OpenEXR package for Fedora Rawhide (maybe even Fedora 34)
should follow this guideline
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life so it's
clear, such package is removed from distribution. But otherwise, the update
from OpenEXR to openexr is clear and all provides/obsolete and other references
are correctly set.