Bug 1965111

building this under mock actually takes a LOT of resources. On my 9th gen thinkpad with 16GB, it ran out of memory or cpu - I even tried with use_spawn = False. My entire machine became very unresponsive.

Perhaps I should add a -j4 to the spec file to limit the resources it can take during build because it does use 8 CPU's fully and for a sustained time.

 - It is preferred to split the BR one per line:

BuildRequires: boost-thread
BuildRequires: boost-system
BuildRequires: boost-date-time
BuildRequires: boost-serialization
BuildRequires: CGAL-devel
BuildRequires: cmake
BuildRequires: gcc-c++
BuildRequires: gmp-devel
BuildRequires: mpfr-devel

 - Are you sure you need 

BuildRequires: boost-thread
BuildRequires: boost-system
BuildRequires: boost-date-time
BuildRequires: boost-serialization

at build time? Shouldn't your BR boost-devel instead?

 - This shouldn't be in the description:

Note: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSFCGAL.so.1.3.8 exit.5

 - In order to avoid unintentional and unannounced soname bump, we recommend not globbing the major soname version, be more specific instead:

%{_libdir}/libSFCGAL.so.1*

My tiny laptop is gonna suffer for the rest of the review.

That wasn't that bad.

 - There is no test:

+ /usr/bin/ctest --output-on-failure --force-new-ctest-process -j16
Test project /builddir/build/BUILD/SFCGAL-v1.3.10/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu
No tests were found!!!

You thus can drop %check 

 - Consider sending a patch upstream to fix this:

wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SFCGAL-devel/example/CGAL-polygon_triangulation2/main.cpp




Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
  (~1MB) or number of files.
  Note: Documentation size is 2263040 bytes in 29 files.
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_documentation


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Library General Public License,
     Version 2.0", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "GNU
     General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public
     License v3.0 or later", "Boost Software License 1.0". 61 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/SFCGAL/review-SFCGAL/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2304000 bytes in /usr/share
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: SFCGAL-1.3.10-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          SFCGAL-devel-1.3.10-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          SFCGAL-debuginfo-1.3.10-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          SFCGAL-debugsource-1.3.10-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          SFCGAL-1.3.10-1.fc35.src.rpm
SFCGAL.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSFCGAL.so.1.3.10 exit.5
SFCGAL-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SFCGAL-devel/example/CGAL-polygon_triangulation2/main.cpp
SFCGAL-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sfcgal-config
SFCGAL.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usr -> use, us, user
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

I forgot to mention that you should split the documentation in a separate noarch -doc subpackage.

I've pushed a -2:

Spec URL: https://download.nohats.ca/SFCGAL/SFCGAL.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.nohats.ca/SFCGAL/SFCGAL-1.3.10-2.fc34.src.rpm

- Removed %check section since there are no tests
- No longer include docs/ as it is mostly an AVI screen recording, and going to the github page is far more useful

You've failed to address any of these comments:


(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #2)
>  - It is preferred to split the BR one per line:
> 
> BuildRequires: boost-thread
> BuildRequires: boost-system
> BuildRequires: boost-date-time
> BuildRequires: boost-serialization
> BuildRequires: CGAL-devel
> BuildRequires: cmake
> BuildRequires: gcc-c++
> BuildRequires: gmp-devel
> BuildRequires: mpfr-devel
> 
>  - Are you sure you need 
> 
> BuildRequires: boost-thread
> BuildRequires: boost-system
> BuildRequires: boost-date-time
> BuildRequires: boost-serialization
> 
> at build time? Shouldn't your BR boost-devel instead?
> 
>  - This shouldn't be in the description:
> 
> Note: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSFCGAL.so.1.3.8 exit.5
> 
>  - In order to avoid unintentional and unannounced soname bump, we recommend
> not globbing the major soname version, be more specific instead:
> 
> %{_libdir}/libSFCGAL.so.1*
> 
> My tiny laptop is gonna suffer for the rest of the review.

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #3)
> That wasn't that bad.
> 
>  - There is no test:
> 
> + /usr/bin/ctest --output-on-failure --force-new-ctest-process -j16
> Test project /builddir/build/BUILD/SFCGAL-v1.3.10/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu
> No tests were found!!!
> 
> You thus can drop %check 
> 
>  - Consider sending a patch upstream to fix this:
> 
> wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
> /usr/share/doc/SFCGAL-devel/example/CGAL-polygon_triangulation2/main.cpp
> 
>

oops. sorry about that. I addressed those now:


Spec URL: https://download.nohats.ca/SFCGAL/SFCGAL.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.nohats.ca/SFCGAL/SFCGAL-1.3.10-3.fc33.src.rpm

Why did you remove the docs instead of creating a noarch doc subpackage?

I had done it because the docs were very uninformative and the majority of the size was a pretty lame AVI file. I didn't think it warrants a sub package. But looking again, I realised the docs just need building and so now I've added the doxygen rendered html docs to the -devel package

Did you have a look at CFGAL and the issue there? It would be nice to resolve the bug you found there with a rebuild so that we could do this package without ExcludeArch: for arm.

Note I logged an upstream for the W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSFCGAL.so.1.3.8 exit.5. 
I do not understand where the exit() is coming from, as the source code surely does not call exit anywhere. See https://gitlab.com/Oslandia/SFCGAL/-/issues/246


Spec URL: https://download.nohats.ca/SFCGAL/SFCGAL.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.nohats.ca/SFCGAL/SFCGAL-1.3.10-4.fc34.src.rpm


Thanks for your patience :)

LGTM, I can't do anything about the bug, upstream need to solve it. Package is approved in the meantime. Don't forget to log a bug for your ExcludeArch, see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_build_failures

Thanks! I'll log the bug as soon as the package is available as component in rhbz. If you want to become co-maintainer, since you maintain CGAL, let me know. I'm also happy to help you co-maintain CGAL.

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/SFCGAL

(In reply to Paul Wouters from comment #11)
> Thanks! I'll log the bug as soon as the package is available as component in
> rhbz. If you want to become co-maintainer, since you maintain CGAL, let me
> know. I'm also happy to help you co-maintain CGAL.

I think you are mistaking me for Laurent Rineau

FEDORA-2021-6267029391 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-6267029391

FEDORA-2021-5ac6ab9513 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-5ac6ab9513

FEDORA-2021-6267029391 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-6267029391 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-6267029391

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2021-5ac6ab9513 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-5ac6ab9513 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-5ac6ab9513

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Indeed: I had planned to do that review, but then Robert-André took over with such an efficiency!

Paul, I can still be co-maintainer if you wish. SFCGAL has been a concern for the CGAL project for a while, because its code has been using undocumented code from CGAL, that kept changing (because CGAL project does not try to ensure any backward-compatibility for undocumented code). See the long list of issues related to CGAL: https://gitlab.com/Oslandia/SFCGAL/-/issues?scope=all&utf8=%E2%9C%93&state=all&search=%22CGAL%22

sorry, yes we had talked about him doing the review and then the review was done and I had not yet recognised his name so I got confused :)

FEDORA-2021-6267029391 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2021-5ac6ab9513 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.