[Bug 204975] New: Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204975

Summary: Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer
                    Vision
           Product: Fedora Extras
           Version: devel
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: normal
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]
         QAContact: [e-mail]

Spec URL: http://bugbear.blackfish.org.uk/~bruno/apt/SPECS/vigra.spec
SRPM URL: http://bugbear.blackfish.org.uk/~bruno/apt/fedora/linux/5/x86_64/SRPMS.panor...
Description:

VIGRA stands for "Vision with Generic Algorithms". It's a novel computer vision
library that puts its main emphasis on customizable algorithms and data
structures. By using template techniques similar to those in the C++ Standard
Template Library, you can easily adapt any VIGRA component to the needs of your
application, without thereby giving up execution speed.

Note 1: I've been maintaining this and other packages in a 3rd party
repository which I'd like to migrate to Extras, so I need a sponsor.

Note 2: vigra is a dependency for the lprof package.

Note 3: This library gets statically linked to libtiff/jpeg/png.  I'd
appreciate pointers for getting it to link dynamically.

[Bug 204975] Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204975

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|Review Request: vigra -     |Review Request: vigra -
                   |Generic Programming for     |Generic Programming for
                   |Computer Vision             |Computer Vision
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-09-05 07:30 EST -------
{Not Official Reviewer}

- rpmlint on SOURCE rpm is NOT silent
rpmlint -iv vigra-1.4.0-1.src.rpm 
I: vigra checking
W: vigra invalid-license MIT/X11
The value of the License tag is invalid.  Valid values are:
"Academic Free License", "Adaptive Public License", "Apache License", "Apache
Software License", "Apple Public Source License", "Artistic", "Attribution
Assurance License", "BSD", "Computer Associates Trusted Open Source License",
"CDDL", "CPL", "CUA Office Public License", "EU DataGrid Software License",
"Eclipse Public License", "Educational Community License", "Eiffel Forum
License", "Entessa Public License", "Fair License", "Frameworx License",
"GPL", "LGPL", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer", "IBM Public
License", "Intel Open Source License", "Jabber Open Source License", "Lucent
Public License", "MIT", "CVW License", "Motosoto License", "MPL", "NASA Open
Source Agreement", "Naumen Public License", "Nethack General Public License",
"Nokia Open Source License", "OCLC Research Public License", "Open Group Test
Suite License", "Open Software License", "PHP License", "Python license",
"Python Software Foundation License", "QPL", "RealNetworks Public Source
License", "Reciprocal Public License", "Ricoh Source Code Public License",
"Sleepycat License", "Sun Industry Standards Source License", "Sun Public
License", "Sybase Open Watcom Public License", "University of Illinois/NCSA
Open Source License", "Vovida Software License", "W3C License", "wxWindows
Library License", "X.Net License", "Zope Public License", "zlib License",
"Design Public License", "GFDL", "LaTeX Project Public License", "OpenContent
License", "Open Publication License", "Public Domain", "Ruby License", "SIL
Open Font License", "Charityware", "Commercial", "Distributable", "Freeware",
"Non-distributable", "Proprietary", "Shareware".
If the license is close to an existing one, you can use '<license> style'.

=> I think you better write MIT only in License tag

W: vigra rpm-buildroot-usage %build    
--docdir=%{buildroot}/usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it
will break short circuiting.

E: vigra configure-without-libdir-spec
A configure script is run without specifying the libdir. configure
options must be augmented with something like --libdir=%{_libdir}.

Many things need to be considered in this package SPCE file. I have modified
SPEC file will post it

[Bug 204975] Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204975

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-09-05 09:22 EST -------
Created an attachment (id=135554)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=135554&action=vie...)
Check this SPEC file with some corrections

Update SRPM and post here

[Bug 204975] Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204975

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Attachment #135554|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |

[Bug 204975] Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204975

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-09-05 09:26 EST -------
Created an attachment (id=135555)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=135555&action=vie...)
Updated SPEC for you

[Bug 204975] Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204975

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-09-05 12:15 EST -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> Updated SPEC for you

Thanks, I've applied the changes, fixed the license and a couple of typos:

Spec URL: http://bugbear.blackfish.org.uk/~bruno/apt/SPECS/vigra.spec
SRPM URL:
http://bugbear.blackfish.org.uk/~bruno/apt/fedora/linux/5/x86_64/SRPMS.panor...

I also put the documentation back in the -devel package as this is
really developer information and there is a lot of it - Should it
go in a -doc subpackage instead?

[Bug 204975] Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204975

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-09-06 00:51 EST -------
Now packaging looks ok

No let the documentation be in -devel package only

[Bug 204975] Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204975

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163779
              nThis|                            |

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-09-07 22:24 EST -------
Thanks for the prelim review Parag.

OK - Package name
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (MIT)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
ea91f2fb4212a21d708aced277e6e85a  vigra1.4.0.tar.gz
ea91f2fb4212a21d708aced277e6e85a  vigra1.4.0.tar.gz.1
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
See below - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - -doc subpackage needed/used.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
OK - .so files in -devel subpackage.
OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
OK - .la files are removed.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - No rpmlint output.

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should include License or ask upstream to include it.
OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should have sane scriptlets.
OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.

Issues:

1. You might change your default attibute lines from:
%defattr(-, root, root)

to

%defattr(-, root, root,-)
(To keep directory permissions the same and not use umask)

2. This package appears to be able to use 'boost python'. Might
look into submitting boost and boost-python?

Neither of those are blockers, you might fix the first before importing.

I am happy to APPROVE this package and sponsor you.
Note that your other submission was approved, so you should be able to 
import it as well.

Continue from step 6 under (Get a Fedora Account):
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors#head-
a89c07b5b8abe7748b6b39f0f89768d595234907

If you have any questions at all, feel free to email me
or catch me on irc in #fedora-extras (my nick is nirik).

[Bug 204975] Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204975

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-09-08 16:49 EST -------
(In reply to comment #6)

Thanks for sponsoring me, I'm reading through the docs now.
> %defattr(-, root, root,-)

Done.
> This package appears to be able to use 'boost python'. Might
>
> look into submitting boost and boost-python?

I've looked into it and the --with-boostpython option is obsolete, there is now
a separate vigrapython package:

https://mailhost.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/pipermail/vigra/2006-March/000199...

I've also extended the BuildRequires, as vigra needs fftw >= 3 and gcc-c++ isn't
installed on a standard system:

Spec URL: http://bugbear.blackfish.org.uk/~bruno/apt/SPECS/vigra.spec
SRPM URL:
http://bugbear.blackfish.org.uk/~bruno/apt/fedora/linux/5/x86_64/SRPMS.panor...

[Bug 204975] Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204975

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-09-08 23:53 EST -------
In reply to comment #7:

ok on the defattr change.

I just saw the --with-boostpython in the configure script, so I thought I would 
mention it. No problem if it's obsolete now.

Requiring fftw >= 3 is fine, but gcc-c++ is part of the base build env: 
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions
so it doesn't need to be listed there.

Otherwise the package looks good to go to me. 
Let me know if you run into any problems with the procedure to import and 
build.

[Bug 204975] Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204975

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |NEXTRELEASE

[Bug 204975] Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=204975

Milan Crha  changed:

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

--- Comment #9 from Milan Crha  2010-03-18 08:36:27 EDT ---
As this is assigned to a review of vigra-1.6.0-2.1, then I'm using it for my
question:

I see that .spec file has spec license MIT, same as is shown in the LICENSE.txt
file, but the "License features" says "Source code: Adobe". I guess it should
be also "Source code: MIT", shouldn't it?

Apart of this the .spec file looks good from my point of view.

[Bug 204975] Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=204975

--- Comment #10 from Bruno Postle  2010-03-18 19:37:55 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I see that .spec file has spec license MIT, same as is shown in the LICENSE.txt
> file, but the "License features" says "Source code: Adobe". I guess it should
> be also "Source code: MIT", shouldn't it?

I'm confused, I can't find the string "License features" or any reference to
Adobe in the vigra sourcecode or the vigra website.

Where do you see this?

[Bug 204975] Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=204975

--- Comment #11 from Milan Crha  2010-03-19 04:49:15 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> I'm confused, I can't find the string "License features" or any reference to
> Adobe in the vigra sourcecode or the vigra website.
>
> Where do you see this?

Ouch, never mind, my fault, please ignore that.