[Bug 459125] Review Request: freecad - A general purpose 3D CAD modeler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459125 Bug 459125 depends on bug 458974, which changed state. Bug 458974 Summary: Review Request: OCE - OpenCASCADE Community Edition https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 459125] Review Request: freecad - A general purpose 3D CAD modeler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459125 Bug 459125 depends on bug 1097368, which changed state. Bug 1097368 Summary: Review Request: smesh - OpenCascade based MESH framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097368 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 459125] Review Request: freecad - A general purpose 3D CAD modeler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459125 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||freecad-0.13-7.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2009-11-24 03:18:57 |2014-06-09 23:06:50 --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System --- freecad-0.13-7.fc20, OCE-0.15-3.fc20.1, smesh-5.1.2.2-10.svn55.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 459125] Review Request: freecad - A general purpose 3D CAD modeler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459125 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System --- Package OCE-0.15-3.fc20.1, smesh-5.1.2.2-10.svn55.fc20, freecad-0.13-6.fc20: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing OCE-0.15-3.fc20.1 smesh-5.1.2.2-10.svn55.fc20 freecad-0.13-6.fc20' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-6805/OCE-0.15-3.fc20.1,smesh-5.1.2.2-10.svn55.fc20,freecad-0.13-6.fc20 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 459125] Review Request: freecad - A general purpose 3D CAD modeler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459125 --- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System --- freecad-0.13-6.el6,smesh-5.1.2.2-10.svn55.el6,OCE-0.15-3.el6.1 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/freecad-0.13-6.el6,smesh-5.1.2.2-10.svn55.el6,OCE-0.15-3.el6.1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 459125] Review Request: freecad - A general purpose 3D CAD modeler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459125 --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System --- OCE-0.15-3.fc20.1,smesh-5.1.2.2-10.svn55.fc20,freecad-0.13-6.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/OCE-0.15-3.fc20.1,smesh-5.1.2.2-10.svn55.fc20,freecad-0.13-6.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 459125] Review Request: freecad - A general purpose 3D CAD modeler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459125 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 459125] Review Request: freecad - A general purpose 3D CAD modeler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459125 --- Comment #29 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 459125] Review Request: freecad - A general purpose 3D CAD modeler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459125 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 459125] Review Request: freecad - A general purpose 3D CAD modeler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459125 Richard Shaw changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #28 from Richard Shaw --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: freecad Short Description: A general purpose 3D CAD modeler Upstream URL: http://www.freecadweb.org/ Owners: hobbes1069 zultron Branches: f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC: Yay! Finally! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 459125] Review Request: freecad - A general purpose 3D CAD modeler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459125 --- Comment #27 from Richard Shaw --- Since the -doc package existed at RPM Fusion I'll need to add a Obsoletes:/Provides: for it to make sure upgrades happen cleanly. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 459125] Review Request: freecad - A general purpose 3D CAD modeler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459125 John Morris changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #26 from John Morris --- So those sqlite files contain documentation needed for runtime? I think this is OK because they're not marked %doc: [?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. However, since they're not %doc, I'd just stick them into the '-data' package and ignore the 'Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage' problem. I believe the spirit of that rule is if docs aren't needed (by humans), it saves space not to install the -doc subpackage. That doesn't apply here, since the files are needed by runtime. I'm fine with the license file, esp. w/good news about the next release. There are still source files with GPLv2+ headers in them that upstream might need to revise. So, looks great! APPROVED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 459125] Review Request: freecad - A general purpose 3D CAD modeler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459125 --- Comment #25 from Richard Shaw --- Spec: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/freecad.spec SRPM: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/freecad-0.13-6.fc20.src.rpm Ok, I think I've taken care of everything bug the license file... Still not sure what to do about it, if anything. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 459125] Review Request: freecad - A general purpose 3D CAD modeler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459125 --- Comment #24 from Richard Shaw --- Ok, per http://www.freecadweb.org/wiki/index.php?title=Licence Freecad up to 0.13 (the current release) it is technically LGPLv2+ (even though it's an application, this is on purpose), but because it links with Coin2 and PyQt, the end result is GPLv2+ as you suggested. Both of those requirements will be replaced in the next release so the license will change back to LGPLv2+. As far as the documentation goes I was going nuts trying to figure out why freecad.qhc was ending up the the main package even though I made do reference to the docdir and then I remembered that when we changed to unversioned doc dir I think the macro changed to glob anything in the docdir automatically, at least that's my theory. I'm going to try adding an exclude to stop this. One of the side effects of this is now the freecad package will have to require the doc package unless FreeCAD gracefully handles the problem of the documentation not being there. The Start_page.html file is left over from verions 0.9 and is way outdated so I think I may just rm -rf it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 459125] Review Request: freecad - A general purpose 3D CAD modeler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459125 --- Comment #23 from John Morris --- (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #22) > (In reply to John Morris from comment #21) > > > [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > > > > [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > > file > > from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > > [...] > > > > [?]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. Also: [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 %doc. > Ok, I'm not sure, am I supposed to do something here? Probably, but I just don't know what. :) The 'copying.lib' file, which serves as the package's license file, is incorrect (not LPGLv2+ since GPLv2+ code is included). It seems wrong to include that in the package as the license file. It also seems wrong to simply drop in a copy of GPLv2+ on our own. Maybe upstream should be queried about it, with the hope of getting them to clarify the status of the software and even commit a new license file in the dev trees that we can 'backport'. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 459125] Review Request: freecad - A general purpose 3D CAD modeler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459125
--- Comment #22 from Richard Shaw ---
(In reply to John Morris from comment #21)
> Issues:
> ===
>
> [?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
>
> *** These are suspicious: Start_page.html and freecad.{qch,qhc}
> Start_page.html might be for the initial GUI.
> freecad.{qch,qhc} are SQLite databases.
Hmm... You may be right. I should probably move these to freecad-data (so they
can stay noarch).
> - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
> (~1MB)
> or number of files.
> Note: Documentation size is 47902720 bytes in 6 files.
> See:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
>
> [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
> is
> arched.
> Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 47912960 bytes in /usr/share
> freecad-0.13-5.fc21.i686.rpm:47912960
> See:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines
>
> *** This is the funny '/usr/share/doc/freecad/freecad.qch' file again,
> 47MB
Ok, I got some work to do here... It actually ends up in 3 places, once in the
main package and twice in the docs package.
> --
>
> - 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 freecad
> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-
> database
>
> *** (from fedora-review tool)
Fixed.
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
> upstream sources. Licenses found: "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)
> (with
> incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF
> address)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or
> generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSL (v1.0)", "LGPL (v2 or later)
> (with
> incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (3 clause)", "ISC", "BSD (2 clause)", "*No
> copyright* LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or
> later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (with incorrect FSF
> address)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)",
> "*No copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 261 files have unknown license.
> Detailed output of licensecheck in
> /home/jman/tmp/freecad/licensecheck.txt
>
> [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
>
> [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
> file
> from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
>
> *** This is confusing:
>
> - Software's 'copying.lib' says LGPLv2+
>
> - Specfile says GPLv3+ (the only GPLv3 according to
> licensecheck.txt is bison artifacts, which contain exceptions)
>
> - Otherwise, the most restrictive licenses found in
> licensecheck.txt are GPLv2+ files; my guess is the specfile
> should say GPLv2+.
Fixed
> [?]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
>
> *** This is a SHOULD item, in case a copy of the GPLv2+ license must
> added by the package
Ok, I'm not sure, am I supposed to do something here?
> -
>
> [?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
> Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in freecad-
> data , freecad-doc
>
> *** Have %{name} = %{version}-%{release} but not %{name}%{?_isa} =
> %{version}-%{release}; is this an issue?
False alarm, you can't add an arch requirement to a noarch package, bad things
happen.
> -
>
> [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
>
> *** No justification for any patches except the last; the first two
> are obviously unbundling patches; how about patches 2 & 3?
I've added some comments, they're probably not super helpful but patches 2-4
are to fix build issues that have cropped up over time. FreeCAD 0.13 is quite
old now and they've made a lot of updates but have not made another release
yet.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 459125] Review Request: freecad - A general purpose 3D CAD modeler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459125
--- Comment #21 from John Morris ---
This is one giant package, whew. Review follows.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
*** These are suspicious: Start_page.html and freecad.{qch,qhc}
Start_page.html might be for the initial GUI.
freecad.{qch,qhc} are SQLite databases.
--
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB)
or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 47902720 bytes in 6 files.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 47912960 bytes in /usr/share
freecad-0.13-5.fc21.i686.rpm:47912960
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines
*** This is the funny '/usr/share/doc/freecad/freecad.qch' file again,
47MB
--
- 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 freecad
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-
database
*** (from fedora-review tool)
-
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with
incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF
address)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or
generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSL (v1.0)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with
incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (3 clause)", "ISC", "BSD (2 clause)", "*No
copyright* LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or
later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (with incorrect FSF
address)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)",
"*No copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 261 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jman/tmp/freecad/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
*** This is confusing:
- Software's 'copying.lib' says LGPLv2+
- Specfile says GPLv3+ (the only GPLv3 according to
licensecheck.txt is bison artifacts, which contain exceptions)
- Otherwise, the most restrictive licenses found in
licensecheck.txt are GPLv2+ files; my guess is the specfile
should say GPLv2+.
[?]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
*** This is a SHOULD item, in case a copy of the GPLv2+ license must
added by the package
-
[?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in freecad-
data , freecad-doc
*** Have %{name} = %{version}-%{release} but not %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}; is this an issue?
-
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
*** No justification for any patches except the last; the first two
are obviously unbundling patches; how about patches 2 & 3?
-
Rpmlint:
freecad.i686: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/freecad/lib/SketcherGui.so
SketcherGui.so
freecad.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/freecad/lib/SketcherGui.so
Part::BRepOffsetAPI_MakePipeShellPy::add(_object*)
freecad.i686: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/freecad/lib/Robot.so Robot.so
freecad.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/freecad/lib/Robot.so
Part::BRepOffsetAPI_MakePipeShellPy::add(_object*)
[...]
*** I don't understand these; are they an issue?
freecad.i686: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/freecad/Mod/PartDesign/Scripts/RadialCopy.py python
freecad.i686: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/freecad/Mod/PartDesign/Scripts/RadialCopy.py 0644L python
*** Because of initial '#!' line; should these be dealt with?
freecad-data.noarch: W: no-documentation
*** Bogus: this pkg is to put large, arch-independent files in a
'noarch' pkg; the docs are in the main package.
freecad.src:216: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
freecad.src:216: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir}
freecad.src:216: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
*** Change % to %%, or just remove?
Unresolved items
[?]: Package functions as described.
*** Reviewer has no rawhide install to test against; pkg deps not yet
in stable releases
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
*** Reviewer hasn't run scratch builds
= MUST it
[Bug 459125] Review Request: freecad - A general purpose 3D CAD modeler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459125 --- Comment #20 from John Morris --- On it -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 459125] Review Request: freecad - A general purpose 3D CAD modeler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459125 Richard Shaw changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: freecad -An |Review Request: freecad - A |Open Source parametric 3D |general purpose 3D CAD |CAD modeler |modeler Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #19 from Richard Shaw --- Spec: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/freecad.spec SRPM: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/freecad-0.13-5.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
