[Bug 1490057] New: Review Request: cloudcompare - 3D point cloud and mesh processing software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490057
Bug ID: 1490057 Summary: Review Request: cloudcompare - 3D point cloud and mesh processing software Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mhroncok@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/cloudcompare.spec SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/cloudcompare-2.8.1-1.fc26.src.rpm
Description:
CloudCompare is a 3D point cloud (and triangular mesh) processing software. It has been originally designed to perform comparison between two 3D points clouds (such as the ones obtained with a laser scanner) or between a point cloud and a triangular mesh. It relies on a specific octree structure that enables great performances in this particular function. It was also meant to deal with huge point clouds (typically more than 10 millions points, and up to 120 millions with 2 Gb of memory).
Afterwards, it has been extended to a more generic point cloud processing software, including many advanced algorithms (registration, resampling, color/normal/scalar fields handling, statistics computation, sensor management, interactive or automatic segmentation, display enhancement...).
Fedora Account System Username: churchyard
Note that this is still very raw package, I'm opening this Review Request to gather general feedback and to inform others I'm working on it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490057
Robert-André Mauchin (afk until Mon 11) zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin (afk until Mon 11) zebob.m@gmail.com --- Hello,
- You can use these URL as SourceX:
Source0: https://github.com/%%7Bcname%7D/%%7Bcname%7D/archive/v%%7Bversion%7D/%%7Bcna...
# git submodules %global pr_commit 7ad96383f639d7625a843c6e97b3ae5579507350 Source1: https://github.com/%%7Bcname%7D/PoissonRecon/archive/%%7Bpr_commit%7D/Poisso...
%global nh_commit 61ba8056d72eedffadb838d9051cc8975ec7a825 Source2: https://github.com/%%7Bcname%7D/normals_Hough/archive/%%7Bnh_commit%7D/norma...
- 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 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 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 install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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 =====
Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in cloudcompare-debuginfo [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 16056320 bytes in /usr/share cloudcompare-2.8.1-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm:16056320 See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guid... [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490057
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- Thanks for the feedback!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490057
--- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490057
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - 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 install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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 =====
Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: cloudcompare-2.9.1-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm cloudcompare-doc-2.9.1-1.fc27.noarch.rpm cloudcompare-debuginfo-2.9.1-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm cloudcompare-debugsource-2.9.1-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm cloudcompare-2.9.1-1.fc27.src.rpm cloudcompare.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US octree -> trochee cloudcompare.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resampling -> re sampling, re-sampling, oversampling cloudcompare.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary CloudCompare cloudcompare.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ccViewer cloudcompare.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ccviewer cloudcompare.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cloudcompare cloudcompare-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation 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: spelling-error %description -l en_US octree -> trochee cloudcompare.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resampling -> re sampling, re-sampling, oversampling cloudcompare.src: W: strange-permission ccviewer.desktop 755 cloudcompare.src: W: strange-permission cloudcompare.desktop 755 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490057
--- Comment #5 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- (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/d4e6e87c206637ccdecfbd689a47e...
cloudcompare.src: W: strange-permission ccviewer.desktop 755 cloudcompare.src: W: strange-permission cloudcompare.desktop 755
https://github.com/hroncok/cloudcompare/commit/f00fca40c4062ded55f62727d4568...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490057
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Seems good to me, package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490057
--- Comment #7 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- Thank you!
BTW Upstream is trying to fix the issues so this might not need the exclude BE arches after all.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490057
--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cloudcompare
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490057
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490057
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2018-03-06 12:24:40
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- 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.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com