[Bug 2274394] New: Review Request: OpenCTM - Software supporting a file format for compression of 3D triangle meshes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274394
Bug ID: 2274394 Summary: Review Request: OpenCTM - Software supporting a file format for compression of 3D triangle meshes Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: code@musicinmybrain.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/OpenCTM.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/OpenCTM-1.0.3-1.fc39.src.rpm
Description:
OpenCTM is a file format, a software library and a tool set for compression of 3D triangle meshes. The geometry is compressed to a fraction of comparable file formats (3DS, STL, COLLADA, VRML...), and the format is easily accessible through a simple, portable API.
Fedora Account System Username: music
This will support a new python-openctm package for https://pypi.org/project/openctm/, which is a recommended dependency currently patched out of python-trimesh. Accordingly, it will be a neuro-sig package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274394
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Issue for validating LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain: https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/507
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274394
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1276941 | |(fedora-neuro,NeuroFedora)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276941 [Bug 1276941] Fedora NeuroImaging and NeuroScience tracking bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274394
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2274557
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274557 [Bug 2274557] Review Request: python-openctm - Provide a loader for OpenCTM files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274394
Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |gui1ty@penguinpee.nl Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |gui1ty@penguinpee.nl
--- Comment #2 from Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl --- It looks like you've taken over development. ;)
Looking at the spec file, the following appears to be a copy paste from the devel sub package:
%package doc Summary: Development files for OpenCTM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274394
--- Comment #3 from Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl --- Issues ======
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "zlib License", "*No copyright* zlib License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "Public domain", "Khronos License and/or MIT License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 and/or Public domain and/or zlib License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) and/or GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "NTP License", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Khronos License". 250 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/OpenCTM/licensecheck.txt
=> Those are from (un)bundled sources. The specified license corresponds to what is shipped.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/applications, /usr/bin, /usr/share/man, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/doc, /usr/src, /usr/lib, /usr/include, /usr/lib64, /usr/src/debug, /usr, /usr/share/icons, /usr/share, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/man/man1 [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr, /usr/share/applications, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/icons, /usr/bin, /usr/lib64, /usr/include, /usr/share/man, /usr/share/man/man1, /usr/src/debug, /usr/share, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/share/doc, /usr/src, /usr/lib
=> Not sure why fedora-review is complaining. Most of the directories are provided by `filesystem`, except /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor and /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable which are provided by `hicolor-icon-theme` and that is listed as a requirement.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
=> Provides: bundled(xz-libs) = 4.65. I suppose the FPC exception is no longer required?
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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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: "Unknown or generated", "zlib License", "*No copyright* zlib License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "Public domain", "Khronos License and/or MIT License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 and/or Public domain and/or zlib License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) and/or GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "NTP License", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Khronos License". 250 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/OpenCTM/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/applications, /usr/bin, /usr/share/man, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/doc, /usr/src, /usr/lib, /usr/include, /usr/lib64, /usr/src/debug, /usr, /usr/share/icons, /usr/share, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/man/man1 [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr, /usr/share/applications, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/icons, /usr/bin, /usr/lib64, /usr/include, /usr/share/man, /usr/share/man/man1, /usr/src/debug, /usr/share, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/share/doc, /usr/src, /usr/lib [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [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. [?]: 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. [?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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 OpenCTM- cli , OpenCTM-viewer , OpenCTM-libs , OpenCTM-devel [?]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [?]: 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]: 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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: OpenCTM-1.0.3-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm OpenCTM-cli-1.0.3-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm OpenCTM-viewer-1.0.3-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm OpenCTM-libs-1.0.3-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm OpenCTM-devel-1.0.3-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm OpenCTM-doc-1.0.3-1.fc41.noarch.rpm OpenCTM-debuginfo-1.0.3-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm OpenCTM-debugsource-1.0.3-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm OpenCTM-1.0.3-1.fc41.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp52fngz9g')] checks: 32, packages: 9
OpenCTM.x86_64: W: no-documentation OpenCTM-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation OpenCTM.x86_64: E: no-binary 9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 51 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 1.0 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: OpenCTM-viewer-debuginfo-1.0.3-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm OpenCTM-debuginfo-1.0.3-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm OpenCTM-libs-debuginfo-1.0.3-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm OpenCTM-cli-debuginfo-1.0.3-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmppb4uweeu')] checks: 32, packages: 4
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 25 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "OpenCTM-debugsource". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "OpenCTM-viewer". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "OpenCTM-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "OpenCTM-viewer-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "OpenCTM-cli". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "OpenCTM-cli-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "OpenCTM-libs". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "OpenCTM-libs-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "OpenCTM-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "OpenCTM-doc". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "OpenCTM". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 11
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Danny02/OpenCTM/archive/e2e588db50a1d2a6b63f668f703bf899e... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c80b07d7598e6bafbb7368783002c778b37129710ee390c0d333d421dc8c306a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c80b07d7598e6bafbb7368783002c778b37129710ee390c0d333d421dc8c306a
Requires -------- OpenCTM (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): OpenCTM-cli(x86-64) OpenCTM-viewer(x86-64)
OpenCTM-cli (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): OpenCTM-libs(x86-64) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libopenctm.so.0.1()(64bit) librply.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libtinyxml.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
OpenCTM-viewer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): OpenCTM-libs(x86-64) hicolor-icon-theme libGL.so.1()(64bit) libGLEW.so.2.2()(64bit) libGLU.so.1()(64bit) libOpenGL.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglut.so.3()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEG_6.2)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libopenctm.so.0.1()(64bit) libpnglite.so.0()(64bit) librply.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libtinyxml.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
OpenCTM-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
OpenCTM-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): OpenCTM-libs(x86-64) libopenctm.so.0.1()(64bit)
OpenCTM-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
OpenCTM-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
OpenCTM-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- OpenCTM: OpenCTM OpenCTM(x86-64)
OpenCTM-cli: OpenCTM-cli OpenCTM-cli(x86-64)
OpenCTM-viewer: OpenCTM-viewer OpenCTM-viewer(x86-64) application() application(ctmviewer.desktop)
OpenCTM-libs: OpenCTM-libs OpenCTM-libs(x86-64) bundled(xz-libs) libopenctm.so.0.1()(64bit)
OpenCTM-devel: OpenCTM-devel OpenCTM-devel(x86-64)
OpenCTM-doc: OpenCTM-doc
OpenCTM-debuginfo: OpenCTM-debuginfo OpenCTM-debuginfo(x86-64)
OpenCTM-debugsource: OpenCTM-debugsource OpenCTM-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name OpenCTM --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, PHP, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, fonts, Haskell, Java, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274394
--- Comment #4 from Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl --- Out of curiosity, why ship an empty OpenCTM meta package instead of making that package ship the desktop application, which has been split off into OpenCTM-viewer?
Since OpenCTM contains no files, shouldn't it be `noarch`? Not sure if that's possible, but it would get rid of `OpenCTM.x86_64: E: no-binary`, though not a goal by itself.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274394
--- Comment #5 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- (In reply to Sandro from comment #4)
Out of curiosity, why ship an empty OpenCTM meta package instead of making that package ship the desktop application, which has been split off into OpenCTM-viewer?
I wanted to make it easy to install the CLI or the desktop application individually, since neither naturally requires the other, but I also wanted "dnf install OpenCTM" to bring in everything. That lead me to the metapackage approach.
Since OpenCTM contains no files, shouldn't it be `noarch`? Not sure if that's possible, but it would get rid of `OpenCTM.x86_64: E: no-binary`, though not a goal by itself.
We can have noarch subpackages with an arched base package, but not arched subpackages with a noarch base package.
(Technically, there is something arched about the OpenCTM metapackage, because it has arched dependencies, e.g. OpenCTM-cli(x86-64), although a hypothetical noarch version could drop the %{?_isa} and everything would still be OK.)
=> Provides: bundled(xz-libs) = 4.65. I suppose the FPC exception is no longer required?
Individual exemptions for each case of bundling are no longer required; I’m operating under https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling, which provides general rules for bundling. Technically, I didn’t contact upstream about a path to unbundling, but also, the library is not only bundled but also forked with an incompatible change, and this is baked into the CTM format, so it’s pretty clear that unbundling will be infeasible.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274394
Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl --- (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #5)
(In reply to Sandro from comment #4)
Out of curiosity, why ship an empty OpenCTM meta package instead of making that package ship the desktop application, which has been split off into OpenCTM-viewer?
I wanted to make it easy to install the CLI or the desktop application individually, since neither naturally requires the other, but I also wanted "dnf install OpenCTM" to bring in everything. That lead me to the metapackage approach.
Makes sense. I overlooked the part where the main package requires the individual sub packages.
Since OpenCTM contains no files, shouldn't it be `noarch`? Not sure if that's possible, but it would get rid of `OpenCTM.x86_64: E: no-binary`, though not a goal by itself.
We can have noarch subpackages with an arched base package, but not arched subpackages with a noarch base package.
(Technically, there is something arched about the OpenCTM metapackage, because it has arched dependencies, e.g. OpenCTM-cli(x86-64), although a hypothetical noarch version could drop the %{?_isa} and everything would still be OK.)
Right. I thought there might be some limitation, but wasn't quite sure. Thanks for the info.
=> Provides: bundled(xz-libs) = 4.65. I suppose the FPC exception is no longer required?
Individual exemptions for each case of bundling are no longer required; I’m operating under https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling, which provides general rules for bundling. Technically, I didn’t contact upstream about a path to unbundling, but also, the library is not only bundled but also forked with an incompatible change, and this is baked into the CTM format, so it’s pretty clear that unbundling will be infeasible.
I probably stumbled upon that section before. Just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something. Probably time to change (the wording of) that item in fedora-review.
(In reply to Sandro from comment #2)
It looks like you've taken over development. ;)
Looking at the spec file, the following appears to be a copy paste from the devel sub package:
%package doc Summary: Development files for OpenCTM
That can be fixed upon import. Package is APPROVED.
I'll continue with `python-openctm` next.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com