Spec Name or Url: http://nomis80.org/rpms/SPECS/opencv.spec
SRPM Name or Url: http://nomis80.org/rpms/SRPMS/opencv-0.9.7-1.src.rpm
Description: OpenCV means IntelÂ® Open Source Computer Vision Library. It is a collection of functions and a few C++ classes that implement some popular Image Processing nd Computer Vision algorithms.
*** This is my first package and I am seeking a sponsor.
Hi Simon, I'm really happy to see that someone is interested in volunteering
to package OpenCV for Fedora. I spent a few hours looking at it and got
bogged down in the dependency details.
Mainly, OpenCV needs ffmpeg which is LGPL (good!) but it unfortunately has
some very real legal issues regarding patents as described in their FAQ:
so, in all likelihood, ffmpeg cannot be added to Fedora Extras per the
which would then mean that OpenCV is effectively excluded since it depends
upon ffmpeg and FE packages cannot depend upon packages that are themselves
excluded from FE.
And if I've made any mistakes in the above reasoning then please point
Thankfully, that dependency seems to be optional. I've updated my package
Hi Simon, when you build a new SRPM, please post the URL. I know its
only a convenience but anything that makes the job easier for the
reviewer is good. ;-)
So, I can build http://nomis80.org/rpms/SRPMS/opencv-0.9.7-2.src.rpm on
FC-4 but rpmlint reports:
W: opencv invalid-license Intel Open Source License
W: opencv-devel invalid-license Intel Open Source License
E: opencv-devel non-executable-script \
W: opencv-python invalid-license Intel Open Source License
E: opencv-python non-executable-script \
E: opencv-python non-executable-script \
I think its safe to ignore the invalid-license warnings. The license
itself seems to be totally compatible with Fedora:
since the terms are essentially "this license must be shipped along
with any source or binaries".
Could you please create an updated RPM that has no rpmlint errors?
Sorry about the new URL. I'll do as you say in the future.
About the rpmlint errors:
The license error is clearly an rpmlint bug. When info is enabled, it lists
"Intel Open Source License" as being acceptable. But it still emits the
warning. So rpmlint should be fixed.
About the non executable build_all.sh: it shouldn't be. It is in %doc and is
provided as documentation, not as a runnable script. If the user wants to
compile the examples, which are provided as documentation, it must copy them
to its home directory. If it also wants to use the build script, which is
provided as an example of a build script (%doc), then it must copy it to its
home, chmod it or run it otherwise.
About the non executable *.py: they clearly shouldn't be. I think this is a
rpmlint bug but I'm not sure. Those .py files are installed in the Python
directory for modules. They are Python modules. They are not scripts. Is that
a rpmlint bug or should I do things otherwise?
The license is ok, rpmlint is stupid and has a hardcoded list of valid ones in
the info-enabled message (not the one configured in /etc/rpmlint/config).
Without having a look at the package, my guess would be that the files in
question contain a shebang and so are treated as scripts and error-flagged due
to being non-executable. If they're not executable scripts, there's no need
to have the shebang in them. That could be reported upstream.
Here you go: http://nomis80.org/rpms/SRPMS/opencv-0.9.7-3.src.rpm
I've informed upstream about the shellbang stuff and I've added a sed command
that does the change in the meantime. I've also removed the build_all.sh
script (which was not that good) along with other useless makefiles and
(gasp!) visual studio project files and replaced them with a three-line
Makefile that actually works. ;) Since it uses GNU make-specific commands I
haven't sent it upstream. Besides, this is only documentation.
Hi Simon, the update looks good.
Its a shame that ffmpeg has issues with regard to software patents and
cannot be included in FE and used in conjunction with OpenCV. Perhaps
someday the political situation will improve!
- source matches upstream
- license included and OK
- rpmlint OK
- builds in mock on FC-4
- specfile looks good
- proper use of ldconfig
Ping? What is the status of this package?
It had been approved 4.5 months ago, however nothing seems to have happened
since then. Close as WONTFIX?
What is still needed of me for the package to be included proper?
Hi Simon, please see:
and follow the instructions. I've approved your package and will sponsor you
once you setup your account within the account system. And if you have
questions or problems then please email me and/or the extras list.
Package Change Request
Package Name: opencv
New Branches: EL-5
We need an ack from the current owner of this package before we can branch it for EPEL.
I have email confirmation from Rakesh Pandit that i can maintain the EPEL branch. I contacted him prior to creating this request.
opencv-1.0.0-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
I would have liked to be consulted as the last commiter in the devel branch of opencv or at least (allowed to cvs approve), with possibly an interest to maintain an epel branch when it will make sense.
1/ Do we have a guideline about how to request epel branch against current Fedora maintainer ?
2/ On which base topdog plan to maintain an epel5 branch ? Is there WIP src.rpm that have been showed ? which version plans to be picked?
Thx for your interest in opencv btw, and welcome onboard.
(In reply to comment #15)
> opencv-1.0.0-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
So we know (I haven't received the commit for el5 at this time)
The guidelines i followed are here https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Getting_a_Fedora_package_in_EPEL
Thanks Nicolas, rakesh being the current maintainer gave me the go ahead for the EPEL branch, Nicolas if you want the EPEL branch you are welcome to pick it up. I was needed to get it in to EPEL as i need it for php-facedetect which in turn is used by horde's ansel gallery application.
opencv-1.0.0-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.