Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/ode.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/ode-0.6-2.src.rpm Description: ODE is an open source, high performance library for simulating rigid body dynamics. It is fully featured, stable, mature and platform independent with an easy to use C/C++ API. It has advanced joint types and integrated collision detection with friction. ODE is useful for simulating vehicles, objects in virtual reality environments and virtual creatures. It is currently used in many computer games, 3D authoring tools and simulation tools. rpmlint output: W: ode-devel no-documentation
Hugo, I've submitted this for review as I'll be the primary maintainer as discussed per mail. Can you review this? Others, Notice that ode contains and will use a private copy of the Opcode collision detect library. This has been "discussed" on f-e-l, that is I posted my intention to package ode with this private copy an rational for it and nobody objected (actually no body replied).
I can't connect to people.atrpms.net, the host is unreachable (I can't ping or connect to port 80). Is it a problem only with me? (I'll try sometime later too). Once I get the SRPM I'll begin doing the review. To the others about the opcode collision detection lib, here is the thread: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-June/msg01139.html
You are right people.atrpms.net seems to be unreachable atm. I didn't make any significant changes, so if you want to start packaging ode using programs you can use my last version. For the review, I hope people.atrpms.net will be back up soon.
I've got the SRPM and now I'll do the review. MUST OK: * rpmlint returns ok for the ode package. The source does not contain documentation for development files, so rpmlint's warning about no-documentation on ode-devel should be fine. * Package is named according to Packaging Guidelines (following upstream's name too) * Spec file name matches the base package * Package meets Packaging Guidelines * Package is legal and licensed under BSD and LGPL, the license field on spec matches the source license. * License files within the source tarball are packaged as %%doc files. * Spec file is in American English and legible :) * Source package matches the upstream tarball: 7afdb1d434a1e2cc2d701fdf8d1f2fad ode-src-0.6.zip * Package builds fine * All BR listed fine, no unusued BR listed. * Package does not need locale files. * The package contains shared libraries and have ldconfig run in %%post and %%postun. * Package owns all directory it creates, does not own other packages' directories. * No duplicate files in %%files * Permission on packaged files are fine * The %%clean section on the spec file is right * Spec file uses macros consistently * No large documentation files in the package, no need for -doc subpackage. * %%doc files does not affect package runtime. * Development files are under the -devel subpackage. * No pkgconfig files. * Devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency * No .la files in the packages. * No GUI application under the package. SHOULD OK: * No scriptlets use * Package build and works fine for i386 and x86_64 I don't see any blockers on this. APPROVED
Imported and build.
Jochen Schmitt, would like to maintain an EPEL branch of this, and that is fine by me (the Fedora owner): Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: ode New Branches: EL-5 Owners: jwrdegoede s4504kr Thanks, Hans
cvs done.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: ode New Branches: el6 Owners: s4504kr Jochen Schmitt, who already maintains the el5 branch for ode would also like to maintain an el6 branch of ode, and that is fine by me (the Fedora owner).
Git done (by process-git-requests).