Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/stellarsolver.spec SRPM URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/stellarsolver-1.6-0.1.20210313gitf3f1456.fc34.src.rpm Description: StellarSolver is the Cross Platform Sextractor and Internal Astrometric Solver: * An Astrometric Plate Solver for Mac, Linux, and Windows, built on Astrometry.net and SEP (sextractor) * Meant to be an internal library for use in a program like KStars for internal plate solving on all supported operating systems Fedora Account System Username: lupinix
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63694998
What about building the "tester" UI also?
- Please add a comment explaining the licenses breakdown: License: BSD and GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ - Own this directory: %dir %{_libdir}/cmake/StellarSolver or simply convert to: %{_libdir}/cmake/StellarSolver/ without the glob. - Please patch these files to use the new FSF address instead of the old one and send the patch upstream: stellarsolver-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libstellarsolver/astrometry/qfits_byteswap.h stellarsolver-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libstellarsolver/astrometry/qfits_card.h stellarsolver-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libstellarsolver/astrometry/qfits_error.h stellarsolver-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libstellarsolver/astrometry/qfits_float.h stellarsolver-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libstellarsolver/astrometry/qfits_header.h stellarsolver-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libstellarsolver/astrometry/qfits_image.h stellarsolver-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libstellarsolver/astrometry/qfits_md5.h stellarsolver-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libstellarsolver/astrometry/qfits_memory.h stellarsolver-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libstellarsolver/astrometry/qfits_rw.h stellarsolver-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libstellarsolver/astrometry/qfits_std.h stellarsolver-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libstellarsolver/astrometry/qfits_table.h stellarsolver-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libstellarsolver/astrometry/qfits_time.h stellarsolver-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libstellarsolver/astrometry/qfits_tools.h - Please consider Mattia's comment. If you choose to package it, maybe you should do so in the main package and then a libs subpackage for the so. 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: [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", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License, Version 3 GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "Expat License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "Public domain GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]". 290 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/stellarsolver/review- stellarsolver/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. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/cmake/StellarSolver [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files. [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 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in stellarsolver-devel [?]: 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]: 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: stellarsolver-1.6-0.1.20210317gitf3f1456.fc35.x86_64.rpm stellarsolver-devel-1.6-0.1.20210317gitf3f1456.fc35.x86_64.rpm stellarsolver-debuginfo-1.6-0.1.20210317gitf3f1456.fc35.x86_64.rpm stellarsolver-debugsource-1.6-0.1.20210317gitf3f1456.fc35.x86_64.rpm stellarsolver-1.6-0.1.20210317gitf3f1456.fc35.src.rpm stellarsolver.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sextractor -> extractor, s extractor, sex tractor stellarsolver.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.5-1 ['1.6-0.1.20210317gitf3f1456.fc35', '1.6-0.1.20210317gitf3f1456'] stellarsolver.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libstellarsolver.so.1.6 exit.5 stellarsolver-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation stellarsolver-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libstellarsolver/astrometry/qfits_byteswap.h stellarsolver-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libstellarsolver/astrometry/qfits_card.h stellarsolver-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libstellarsolver/astrometry/qfits_error.h stellarsolver-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libstellarsolver/astrometry/qfits_float.h stellarsolver-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libstellarsolver/astrometry/qfits_header.h stellarsolver-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libstellarsolver/astrometry/qfits_image.h stellarsolver-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libstellarsolver/astrometry/qfits_md5.h stellarsolver-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libstellarsolver/astrometry/qfits_memory.h stellarsolver-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libstellarsolver/astrometry/qfits_rw.h stellarsolver-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libstellarsolver/astrometry/qfits_std.h stellarsolver-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libstellarsolver/astrometry/qfits_table.h stellarsolver-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libstellarsolver/astrometry/qfits_time.h stellarsolver-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libstellarsolver/astrometry/qfits_tools.h stellarsolver.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sextractor -> extractor, s extractor, sex tractor 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 13 errors, 5 warnings.
Thanks! For FSF address: Filed https://github.com/rlancaste/stellarsolver/pull/78 Working on the other improvements now.
Updated, replaced SRPM and SPEC inplace. New Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=64178276
Major changes: * Build tester application * Moved shared libraries to libs subpackage * Added licensing breakdown to stellarsolver.spec
Looking at source code and README, it seems that stellarsolver bundles SEP (http://github.com/kbarbary/sep) and partial code from astrometry. I think those should be listed as 'Provides: bundled()' in the specfile.
Thanks for licenses fixed. Correct me if I am wrong, but sextractor is already packaged for Fedora [1]. Astrometry seems to exist as well [2]. Therefore just bundled(astronomy) should not be used, unless sources bundled in this package are modified and incompatible with last versions. If they are compatible, libraries should be used. Starting with BuildRequires: astrometry-devel Any downstream changes required to build with shared library astronomy should be reported back to upstream. There exists also python-sep package [3], which seems to package only python part of sep library. It seems a new package sep should be imported, providing both python and C-library, which can be then used both to provide python package and sep-devel library for reuse by this package. Until that is finished, I guess Provides: bundled(sep) is acceptable. It should be noted in spec as TODO, maybe even fill a bug on python-sep for missing C library for coordination. Ideally new review bug should be created for sep, this bug depending on it. Otherwise spec looks ready. From quick look to CMakeLists.txt, upstream does not even consider astrometry separate library. Can you try to build it using shared libraries with existing packages? I have seen astrometry.cfg in sources. Should it also Recommends: astrometry, at least? 1. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sextractor 2. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/astrometry 3. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sep
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: [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", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License, Version 3 GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "Expat License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "Public domain GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 290 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/fedora/rawhide/1938451-stellarsolver/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: 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. [!]: 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. [x]: 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 40960 bytes in 2 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 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: [x]: 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 stellarsolver-libs , stellarsolver-devel Review Note: Requires: %{name}-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} used [?]: 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]: 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: stellarsolver-1.6-0.1.20210313gitf3f1456.fc35.x86_64.rpm stellarsolver-libs-1.6-0.1.20210313gitf3f1456.fc35.x86_64.rpm stellarsolver-devel-1.6-0.1.20210313gitf3f1456.fc35.x86_64.rpm stellarsolver-debuginfo-1.6-0.1.20210313gitf3f1456.fc35.x86_64.rpm stellarsolver-debugsource-1.6-0.1.20210313gitf3f1456.fc35.x86_64.rpm stellarsolver-1.6-0.1.20210313gitf3f1456.fc35.src.rpm stellarsolver.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sextractor -> extractor, s extractor, sex tractor stellarsolver.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary StellarSolverTester stellarsolver-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libstellarsolver.so.1.6 exit.5 stellarsolver-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation stellarsolver.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sextractor -> extractor, s extractor, sex tractor 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: stellarsolver-debuginfo-1.6-0.1.20210313gitf3f1456.fc35.x86_64.rpm stellarsolver-libs-debuginfo-1.6-0.1.20210313gitf3f1456.fc35.x86_64.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/rlancaste/stellarsolver/archive/f3f1456c58ae6a5dd896b4c9b443f16d2f2162c1/stellarsolver-f3f1456c58ae6a5dd896b4c9b443f16d2f2162c1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a0f7ab707e247e7e63294a89f037a0ae51344be95f1d3620400729aaaf06e039 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a0f7ab707e247e7e63294a89f037a0ae51344be95f1d3620400729aaaf06e039 Requires -------- stellarsolver (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcfitsio.so.9()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgsl.so.25()(64bit) libgslcblas.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libwcs.so.7()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) stellarsolver-libs(x86-64) stellarsolver-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcfitsio.so.9()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgsl.so.25()(64bit) libgslcblas.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libwcs.so.7()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) stellarsolver-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libstellarsolver.so.1()(64bit) stellarsolver-libs(x86-64) stellarsolver-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): stellarsolver-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- stellarsolver: stellarsolver stellarsolver(x86-64) stellarsolver-libs: libstellarsolver.so.1()(64bit) stellarsolver-libs stellarsolver-libs(x86-64) stellarsolver-devel: cmake(StellarSolver) cmake(stellarsolver) pkgconfig(stellarsolver) stellarsolver-devel stellarsolver-devel(x86-64) stellarsolver-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) stellarsolver-debuginfo stellarsolver-debuginfo(x86-64) stellarsolver-debugsource: stellarsolver-debugsource stellarsolver-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1938451 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Python, Ocaml, fonts, SugarActivity, Java, PHP, Haskell, R, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
From quick check of sources, sep contains some C++ wrapper missing in original sep library. Because separate sep library is not present, I think Provides: bundled(sep) is fine. Astrometry can be used and therefore should be used. I made quick test, it builds against astrometry-devel just fine. With some tweaks.
Created attachment 1803323 [details] patch astrometry used from system Build using %cmake -DASTROMETRY_BUNDLED=OFF and add BuildRequires: astrometry-devel. It should use system astrometry build instead, linking to dynamic link of astrometry.
Are you able to build stellarsolver against shared astrometry library as proposed in comment #11? Do you know any reason why it should not be linked that way? Would it work different way than with bundled static library?
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.
Hey @pemensik, I made an issue here to get more context on why the custom versions are needed: https://github.com/rlancaste/stellarsolver/issues/84 It seems like there are tons of changes to astrometry.net and sep, so they should be bundled in this package. @lupinix looks like this package should be good to go, after adding the Provides: bundled(sep) and Provides: bundled(astrometry) as mentioned in comment 10.
I think most of these changes do not affect linux builds at all. There are changes to astrometry, but most of them are changes made to enable compilation on WIN32 platform. Such changes are not important to us. I admit in current form bundled(astrometry) might be needed. But I think work to enable direct use of astrometry library should be done. I think it IS possible and no major changes would be required. But some would be. I think any changes needed should be proposed to astrometry project [1], which seems still active. I have not checked sep project [1] changes too much, but it seems active too. Its changes seems more heavy and unpatched upstream does not provide all required functionality. I would propose supplying also versions to Provides: bundled(astrometry) = 0.76 and comment current source is incompatible with existing package astrometry. Confirmed by upstream [2]. I think upstream maintainer might be able to provide also sep version [3], which were imported into stellarsolver library. It should be obvious they are much older than current versions. It should be noted both are modified and not compatible without additional work. I think some bug should be kept open to merge all required changes to astrometry.net directly, but they are not trivial enough to block whole review for them. Please fill a new review to finish inclusion. Expect I would request astrometry package reuse even for a passed package. But that might require multiple pull requests later. I guess we first want kstars to be updated and then can try improving its dependencies to reuse existing code. 1. https://github.com/dstndstn/astrometry.net 2. https://github.com/rlancaste/stellarsolver/issues/84#issuecomment-976086875 3. https://github.com/kbarbary/sep