https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #46 from Fedora Update System ---
octave-iso2mesh-1.9.1-3.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #43 from Laurent Rineau ---
(In reply to Qianqian Fang from comment #34)
> @Ankur, @Robert-Andre and @Laurent, thank you all for the comments and help
> on creating this package.
>
> the latest spec file can be found on the src gi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #42 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
(In reply to Qianqian Fang from comment #34)
> @Ankur, @Robert-Andre and @Laurent, thank you all for the comments and help
> on creating this package.
>
> the latest spec file can be found on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System ---
octave-iso2mesh-1.9.1-3.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System ---
octave-iso2mesh-1.9.1-3.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #39 from Fedora Update System ---
octave-iso2mesh-1.9.1-3.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2019-63ea1f8fbf has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-63ea1f8fbf
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2019-09a3e14f40 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-09a3e14f40
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #36 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2019-a94d821b53 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-a94d821b53
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #35 from Qianqian Fang ---
sorry, for the failed %make_build log, please see the below link instead
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=38209438
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
Qianqian Fang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #33 from Fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #32 from Laurent Rineau ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #29)
> You need to add a comment explaining the breakdown
>
> # Main package: GPLv3+
> # JMeshLib: GPLv2
> # Tetgen: AGPLv3+
> License: GPLv3+ and GPLv2 a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2019-fec9adc180 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-fec9adc180
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED
--- Comment #30 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #29 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
(In reply to Qianqian Fang from comment #27)
>
> > Here we can see that the license checker has detected a lot of licenses
> > (including AGPLv3+ and GPLv2), so the package cannot be just GPLv3+.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #28 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
You're right, Tetgen is AGPLv3 amd JMeshLib is GPLv2, but I didn't understand
it was into the resulting binary:
AGPL (v3 or later)
--
iso2mesh-1.9.1/tools/tetgen/LICENSE
GPL (v2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #27 from Qianqian Fang ---
> So, bundling tetgen etc if fine if necessary, but the binaries should not be
> in /usr/share. That violates the FHS as rpmlint points out. Can they be moved
> to an arch specific directory, preferably
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #26 from Laurent Rineau ---
And the License declaration of the package is wrong. As the package bundles
other software, the licensing is complicated.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #12)
> [x]: License field in th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #25 from Laurent Rineau ---
(In reply to Laurent Rineau from comment #21)
> I love to see iso2mesh packaged in Fedora, but there have been error in this
> review. Even rpmlint can see them:
>
> [lrineau@bonnard]~% rpm -q octave-is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #24 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
(In reply to Laurent Rineau from comment #21)
> I love to see iso2mesh packaged in Fedora, but there have been error in this
> review. Even rpmlint can see them:
>
> [lrineau@bonnard]~% rpm -q
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #23 from Qianqian Fang ---
@Laurent,
regarding my question in the cgal-discuss mailing list, it turned out that the
large executable sizes were results of debug info in the generated executables.
Fortunately, rpm automatically str
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #22 from Qianqian Fang ---
@Laurent, thanks for chiming in.
I just tested octave-iso2mesh on f30 in updates-testing repo, the installation
and execution was fine.
regarding your comments
1. the arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
Laurent Rineau changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||laurent.rineau__fedora@norm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #20 from Fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|MODIFIED
--- Comment #19 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #18 from Qianqian Fang ---
ok, fixing the typo (gcc-g++ -> gcc-c++) fixed the f29 and f30 build errors.
perhaps this was also the cause for the initial error. I am going to revert the
%make_build flag and see what happens.
I tried
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #17 from Qianqian Fang ---
just want to report a problem when building the package (but I have found a
solution).
using the above spec file, when I ran fedpkg build, the job failed initially -
I tried both rawhide and f30, both fa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #16 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/octave-iso2mesh
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #15 from Qianqian Fang ---
thanks, the mentioned issues are fixed
https://github.com/fangq/fedorapkg/commit/94aa38ef29203635d7f62117f1b660e3e50610d8
https://github.com/fangq/fedorapkg/blob/iso2mesh/octave-iso2mesh.spec
I have tw
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-r
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #13 from Qianqian Fang ---
@eclipseo, I made the following changes according to your above comments:
changeset 1:
https://github.com/fangq/fedorapkg/commit/c6574e3ec3b41240fb4f3aecd35f19889932a802
this addresses the CGAL header-o
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
F
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #11 from Qianqian Fang ---
@FranciscoD and @eclipseo,
my spec file is updated according to your feedback
https://github.com/fangq/fedorapkg/commit/72e3319103a36a1d9aa7f99052fb09646ca19863
@FranciscoD: the error on arm was cause
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
It should work on F30 by redefining octave_tar_suffix after octave_pkg_build:
%octave_pkg_build
%global octave_tar_suffix any-none
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #9 from R
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #8 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
As I said in the other ticket, please test the build against rawhide instead of
f30. (fedpkg --release f32 ... should do it)
I ran a test build, and if succeeds for all architectures other than
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #7 from Qianqian Fang ---
@Robert-Andre, thanks for the feedback. I updated the spec file with the
changes you suggested
https://github.com/fangq/fedorapkg/commit/8f85a65af6a745f8358833aedbbe6c5df7f36eb9
but now the package canno
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 fr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #4 from Qianqian Fang ---
@Ankur, thanks for the review. see my replies below.
> Here, the spec is building 4 different tools?
No. the spec is for building iso2mesh only - the tools you saw are used
internally by iso2mesh and are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
I'm looking at the spec now. Each spec should only build one software. Here,
the spec is building 4 different tools? (tetgen is already in Fedora, by the
way, so it must be used as a BuildRequir
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1276941 (fedora-neuro)
Re
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #2 from Qianqian Fang ---
This packaging request can be found in
https://pagure.io/neuro-sig/NeuroFedora/issue/146
This package is configured as a "semi-noarch" package according to the comments
in
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/s
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #1 from Qianqian Fang ---
rpmlint output for srpm:
--
$rpmlint /home/fangq/rpmbuild/SRPMS/octave-iso2mesh-1.9.1-1.fc30.src.rpm
octave-iso2mesh.src: W: spel
45 matches
Mail list logo
