Bug 2173758

Summary: Review Request: apriltag - Visual fiducial system popular for robotics research
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Scott K Logan <logans>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Benson Muite <benson_muite>
Status: ASSIGNED --- QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: benson_muite, package-review
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: AutomationTriaged
Target Release: ---Flags: benson_muite: fedora-review?
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
URL: https://april.eecs.umich.edu/software/apriltag
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 1225692    
Attachments:
Description Flags
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5574803 to 6338636
none
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6338636 to 6873418 none

Description Scott K Logan 2023-02-27 21:47:46 UTC
Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/apriltag/apriltag.spec
SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/apriltag/apriltag-3.3.0-1.fc39.src.rpm

Description:
AprilTag is a visual fiducial system popular in robotics research. This package
contains the most recent version of AprilTag, AprilTag 3, which includes a
faster (>2x) detector, improved detection rate on small tags, flexible tag
layouts, and pose estimation. AprilTag consists of a small C library with
minimal dependencies.

Fedora Account System Username: cottsay
Target branches: rawhide f37 f36 epel9 epel8 epel7
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=98082422

Thanks!

Comment 1 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-02-27 22:16:39 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5574803
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2173758-apriltag/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05574803-apriltag/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 2 Benson Muite 2023-02-28 10:18:33 UTC
Package Review
==============

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



===== 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:
[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 2-Clause
     with views sentence", "MIT License". 19 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/apriltag/2173758-apriltag/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.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
     Note: Couldn't connect to Pagure, check manually
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[ ]: 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[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).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     apriltag-devel
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[ ]: 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]: 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:
[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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: apriltag-3.3.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          apriltag-devel-3.3.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          apriltag-debuginfo-3.3.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          apriltag-debugsource-3.3.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          apriltag-3.3.0-1.fc39.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpqc3h8rto')]
checks: 31, packages: 5

apriltag-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 4.2 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: apriltag-debuginfo-3.3.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpuhjnqvn7')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.5 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 4

apriltag-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 3.4 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/AprilRobotics/apriltag/archive/v3.3.0/apriltag-3.3.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 68ef6640f55aac6566ba8d030a4e7d960446d5b9340dfb61e79b9f92a08b1032
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 68ef6640f55aac6566ba8d030a4e7d960446d5b9340dfb61e79b9f92a08b1032


Requires
--------
apriltag (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

apriltag-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    apriltag
    libapriltag.so.3()(64bit)

apriltag-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

apriltag-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
apriltag:
    apriltag
    apriltag(x86-64)
    libapriltag.so.3()(64bit)

apriltag-devel:
    apriltag-devel
    apriltag-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(apriltag)

apriltag-debuginfo:
    apriltag-debuginfo
    apriltag-debuginfo(x86-64)
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libapriltag.so.3.3.0-3.3.0-1.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit)

apriltag-debugsource:
    apriltag-debugsource
    apriltag-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2173758
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Python, Java, R, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts, Ocaml, Ruby, Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comments:
a) Please update the license information and add a breakdown to the spec file. Output from fedora-review
BSD 2-Clause License
--------------------
apriltag-3.3.0/LICENSE.md

BSD 2-Clause with views sentence
--------------------------------
apriltag-3.3.0/apriltag.c
apriltag-3.3.0/apriltag.h
apriltag-3.3.0/apriltag_math.h
apriltag-3.3.0/apriltag_quad_thresh.c
apriltag-3.3.0/common/debug_print.h
apriltag-3.3.0/common/doubles.h
apriltag-3.3.0/common/doubles_floats_impl.h
apriltag-3.3.0/common/floats.h
apriltag-3.3.0/common/g2d.c
apriltag-3.3.0/common/g2d.h
apriltag-3.3.0/common/getopt.c
apriltag-3.3.0/common/getopt.h
apriltag-3.3.0/common/homography.c
apriltag-3.3.0/common/homography.h
apriltag-3.3.0/common/image_types.h
apriltag-3.3.0/common/image_u8.c
apriltag-3.3.0/common/image_u8.h
apriltag-3.3.0/common/image_u8x3.c
apriltag-3.3.0/common/image_u8x3.h
apriltag-3.3.0/common/image_u8x4.c
apriltag-3.3.0/common/image_u8x4.h
apriltag-3.3.0/common/matd.c
apriltag-3.3.0/common/matd.h
apriltag-3.3.0/common/math_util.h
apriltag-3.3.0/common/pam.c
apriltag-3.3.0/common/pam.h
apriltag-3.3.0/common/pjpeg-idct.c
apriltag-3.3.0/common/pjpeg.c
apriltag-3.3.0/common/pjpeg.h
apriltag-3.3.0/common/pnm.c
apriltag-3.3.0/common/pnm.h
apriltag-3.3.0/common/postscript_utils.h
apriltag-3.3.0/common/string_util.c
apriltag-3.3.0/common/string_util.h
apriltag-3.3.0/common/svd22.c
apriltag-3.3.0/common/svd22.h
apriltag-3.3.0/common/time_util.c
apriltag-3.3.0/common/time_util.h
apriltag-3.3.0/common/timeprofile.h
apriltag-3.3.0/common/unionfind.c
apriltag-3.3.0/common/unionfind.h
apriltag-3.3.0/common/workerpool.c
apriltag-3.3.0/common/workerpool.h
apriltag-3.3.0/common/zarray.c
apriltag-3.3.0/common/zarray.h
apriltag-3.3.0/common/zhash.c
apriltag-3.3.0/common/zhash.h
apriltag-3.3.0/common/zmaxheap.c
apriltag-3.3.0/common/zmaxheap.h
apriltag-3.3.0/example/apriltag_demo.c
apriltag-3.3.0/example/opencv_demo.cc
apriltag-3.3.0/tag16h5.c
apriltag-3.3.0/tag16h5.h
apriltag-3.3.0/tag25h9.c
apriltag-3.3.0/tag25h9.h
apriltag-3.3.0/tag36h10.h
apriltag-3.3.0/tag36h11.c
apriltag-3.3.0/tag36h11.h
apriltag-3.3.0/tagCircle21h7.c
apriltag-3.3.0/tagCircle21h7.h
apriltag-3.3.0/tagCircle49h12.c
apriltag-3.3.0/tagCircle49h12.h
apriltag-3.3.0/tagCustom48h12.c
apriltag-3.3.0/tagCustom48h12.h
apriltag-3.3.0/tagStandard41h12.c
apriltag-3.3.0/tagStandard41h12.h
apriltag-3.3.0/tagStandard52h13.c
apriltag-3.3.0/tagStandard52h13.h

MIT License
-----------
apriltag-3.3.0/common/pthreads_cross.cpp
apriltag-3.3.0/common/pthreads_cross.h

b) Please list
%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.*
as
%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.3*
the first part of the soname should be included

c) THe first change in the patch is not needed:
-    install(TARGETS opencv_demo RUNTIME DESTINATION bin)
+    # install(TARGETS opencv_demo RUNTIME DESTINATION bin)
as open_cv is not available during the build process

d) Perhaps ping upstream to make the tag 3.3.0 as a release, not just a tag

Comment 3 Scott K Logan 2023-08-23 19:26:07 UTC
Thanks for the review! I'm sorry that I missed it!

I applied a, b, and c from your list to the spec file as suggested.

Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/apriltag/apriltag.spec
SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/apriltag/apriltag-3.3.0-2.fc40.src.rpm
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=105201192

Comment 4 Fedora Review Service 2023-08-23 19:33:29 UTC
Created attachment 1984887 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5574803 to 6338636

Comment 5 Fedora Review Service 2023-08-23 19:33:31 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6338636
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2173758-apriltag/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06338636-apriltag/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 6 Benson Muite 2023-08-25 08:45:43 UTC
Package Review
==============

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



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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[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]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 2-Clause
     with views sentence", "MIT License". 19 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/apriltag/2173758-apriltag/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 12385 bytes in 1 files.
[ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     apriltag-devel
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[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]: 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:
[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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: apriltag-3.3.0-2.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          apriltag-devel-3.3.0-2.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          apriltag-debuginfo-3.3.0-2.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          apriltag-debugsource-3.3.0-2.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          apriltag-3.3.0-2.fc38.src.rpm
=================================== rpmlint session starts ===================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpk9r90u06')]
checks: 31, packages: 5

apriltag-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
==== 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 3.8 s ====




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: apriltag-debuginfo-3.3.0-2.fc38.x86_64.rpm
=================================== rpmlint session starts ===================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpgmi_p01h')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

==== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.4 s ====





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 4

apriltag-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 4.7 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/AprilRobotics/apriltag/archive/v3.3.0/apriltag-3.3.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 68ef6640f55aac6566ba8d030a4e7d960446d5b9340dfb61e79b9f92a08b1032
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 68ef6640f55aac6566ba8d030a4e7d960446d5b9340dfb61e79b9f92a08b1032


Requires
--------
apriltag (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

apriltag-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    apriltag
    libapriltag.so.3()(64bit)

apriltag-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

apriltag-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
apriltag:
    apriltag
    apriltag(x86-64)
    libapriltag.so.3()(64bit)

apriltag-devel:
    apriltag-devel
    apriltag-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(apriltag)

apriltag-debuginfo:
    apriltag-debuginfo
    apriltag-debuginfo(x86-64)
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libapriltag.so.3.3.0-3.3.0-2.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit)

apriltag-debugsource:
    apriltag-debugsource
    apriltag-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2173758 -m fedora-38-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: R, fonts, Python, SugarActivity, PHP, Ruby, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

a) There should either be a separate file for BSD-2 Clause with views license or the license file should be updated:
https://github.com/AprilRobotics/apriltag/issues/288
Perhaps add an additional license file:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
b) As a basic smoke test, you might try building the example apriltag_demo.c

Comment 7 Benson Muite 2023-10-28 06:14:25 UTC
Upstream has updated to use BSD-2-Clause WITH views:
https://github.com/AprilRobotics/apriltag/pull/289/files

Comment 8 Scott K Logan 2024-01-08 21:17:06 UTC
Upstream has yet to release a new version, so I pulled your patch from the commit logs.

The package was already building `apriltag_demo` during each build, but I added an invocation of it to %check as a smoke test. In order to actually use the demo, we'd need some test assets which aren't included in this repository.

Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/apriltag/apriltag.spec
SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/apriltag/apriltag-3.3.0-3.fc40.src.rpm
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=111492838

Thanks,

--scott

Comment 9 Fedora Review Service 2024-01-08 21:24:29 UTC
Created attachment 2007846 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6338636 to 6873418

Comment 10 Fedora Review Service 2024-01-08 21:24:32 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6873418
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2173758-apriltag/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06873418-apriltag/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.