[Bug 694479] Review Request: pcl - Library for point cloud processing

Sat Dec 17 06:06:09 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=694479

Rich Mattes <richmattes at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |package-review at lists.fedora
                   |                            |project.org
          Component|0xFFFF                      |Package Review
         AssignedTo|richmattes at gmail.com        |nobody at fedoraproject.org

--- Comment #8 from Rich Mattes <richmattes at gmail.com> 2011-12-17 01:06:06 EST ---
I was able to build this package locally on f16 without any errors, so I can
(finally) proceed with a review!

[+]: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
 $ rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/pcl-* ../SRPMS/pcl*
pcl.x86_64: E: zero-length
/usr/share/doc/pcl-1.3.1/tutorials/sources/pcl_visualizer/CMakeLists.txt.simple
pcl.x86_64: E: zero-length
/usr/share/doc/pcl-1.3.1/tutorials/sources/pcl_visualizer/pcl_visualizer_simple.cpp
pcl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-documentation
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_passthrough_filter
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_openni_mls_smoothing
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_extract_feature
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_mesh2pcd
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_openni_change_viewer
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_surfel_smoothing_test
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_fpfh_estimation
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_openni_uniform_sampling
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_openni_grabber_example
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_pcd_grabber_viewer
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_icp2d
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_openni_planar_segmentation
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_gp3_surface
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_spin_estimation
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_openni_io
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_mls_smoothing
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_openni_passthrough
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_elch
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_registration_visualizer
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_icp
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_cluster_extraction
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_pcd_convert_NaN_nan
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_nn_classification_example
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_convert_pcd_ascii_binary
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_pcd_viewer
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_openni_ii_normal_estimation
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_octree_viewer
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_ppf_object_recognition
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_transform_point_cloud
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_openni_viewer
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_plane_projection
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
pcl_statistical_multiscale_interest_region_extraction_example
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_voxel_grid
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_openni_voxel_grid
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_openni_feature_persistence
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_mesh_sampling
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_openni_grab_frame
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_add_gaussian_noise
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_openni_3d_convex_hull
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_compute_cloud_error
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_boundary_estimation
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_openni_stream_compression
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_oni_viewer
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_vfh_estimation
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_openni_image
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_normal_estimation
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_pyramid_surface_matching
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_openni_boundary_estimation
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
pcl_multiscale_feature_persistence_example
pcl-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcl_openni_3d_concave_hull
pcl.src:126: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir}
pcl.src:126: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir}
pcl.src:127: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir}
pcl.src:130: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir}
pcl.src:134: W: macro-in-comment %check
pcl.src:121: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 121)
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 58 warnings.

The manpage stuff is nothing to worry about.  It also looks like they're
installing an empty example by default.  It's not the end of the world, but it
might be worth it to remove the offending files until they are filled in.  The
rest of the warnings are harmless

[+]: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines

[+]: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.

[+]: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines

[+]: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines

[+]: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.

[+]: 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.

[+]: The spec file must be written in American English. 

[+]: The spec file for the package must be legible. 

[+]: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
a20953ed241fc7eb7d105878b01fa6c5  /home/rich/Downloads/PCL-1.3.1-Source.tar.bz2
a20953ed241fc7eb7d105878b01fa6c5  ../SOURCES/PCL-1.3.1-Source.tar.bz2

[-]: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Tested on my local f16 machine with openni packages from
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=11605, but the build
fails in koji since the updates are still in updates-testing.  It looks like
the update got at least one negative karma in the f15 package; either way this
has to wait for an up-to-date openni to land in updates.

[+]: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch must have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number must be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.

[+]: 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.

[N]: The spec file must handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.

[+]: 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. 

[+]: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
    Contained in the source distribution, removed in spec file.

[N]: 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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a
blocker.

[+]: 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.

[-]: 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)
For some reason, the base pcl package is including
/usr/share/doc/{tutorials,pcl-1.3.1}, which are supposed to be in the pcl-doc
package.  It's not obvious to me why this is happening since the files are only
listed in the pcl-doc package, so I'm going to keep poking at it.

[+]: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
Defattr is set correctly, 

[+]: Each package must consistently use macros. 
Use of macros is appropriate and consistent.

[+]: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 

[+]: 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. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
   HTML API documentation is large, and in a separate noarch subpackage

[+]: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly
if it is not present. 

[+]: Header files must be in a -devel package. 

[N]: Static libraries must be in a -static package.

[+]: 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. 

[+]: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release} 

[+]: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.

[-]: 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. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. 
   There are a few GUI applications that don't include a note about the lack of
.desktop file in the -tools subpackage.  It's fine that upstream doesn't
provide them (or manpages), it'd just be nice to see it noted.

[+]: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time. 

[+]: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. 

So action items before approval are:
 - Wait for an updated openni to land in updates
 - Note reasoning for lack of manpages and .desktop files
 - Sort out /usr/share/doc/pcl-1.3.1/* in the main package, and
/usr/share/doc/pcl-1.3.1/* in the -doc package

Once these issues are addressed, I can approve this package.

-- 
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.