[Bug 690038] Review Request: ompl - The Open Motion Planning Library

Thu Apr 14 20:54:32 UTC 2011

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=690038

--- Comment #1 from David Robinson <zxvdr.au at gmail.com> 2011-04-14 16:54:32 EDT ---
Hi Rich,

Just doing an informal review to help my case of being sponsored :-)

**: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]

[zxvdr at laptop SRPMS]$ rpmlint ompl-0.9.2-1.fc15.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

[zxvdr at laptop x86_64]$ rpmlint ompl-0.9.2-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm 
ompl.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libompl.so libompl.so
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

The missing soversion is a blocker - it needs to be fixed.

OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[3]
OK: 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 must be included in %doc.[4]
OK: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.

[zxvdr at laptop SOURCES]$ md5sum ompl-0.9.2-Source.tar.gz 
70ce9020edca3e6cec8ea070d390ba9e  ompl-0.9.2-Source.tar.gz
[zxvdr at laptop SOURCES]$ wget
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/ompl/ompl-0.9.2-Source.tar.gz -q -O -
| md5sum
70ce9020edca3e6cec8ea070d390ba9e  -

OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
OK: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. 
**: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.

README.txt specifies that Boost 1.42 or higher and CMake 2.8.2 or higher are
dependencies - BuildRequires should reflect this, eg:
BuildRequires: cmake >= 2.8.2
BuildRequires: boost >= 1.42

NA: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
OK: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files
(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
NA: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation
of that specific package.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory. [13]
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)[14]
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line. [15]
OK: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of
large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. 
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. 
OK: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
NA: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
**: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package. [19]

Missing soversion...

OK: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release} [21]
OK: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.[20]
NA: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24]

The SHOULD's:

NA: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [25]
NA: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [26]
OK: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [27]
OK: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures. [28]
OK: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package
should not segfault instead of running, for example.

Built the demos against the installed libraries, and they work fine.

[zxvdr at laptop bin]$ ./demo_ODERigidBodyPlanning > /dev/null
[zxvdr at laptop bin]$ echo $?
0

NA: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and
left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [29]
NA: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency. [21]
NA: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is
usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. 
NA: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself. [31]
NA: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't,
work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[32]

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.