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!
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.
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
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
Created attachment 1984887 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5574803 to 6338636
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.
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
Upstream has updated to use BSD-2-Clause WITH views: https://github.com/AprilRobotics/apriltag/pull/289/files
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
Created attachment 2007846 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6338636 to 6873418
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.
Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/apriltag/apriltag.spec SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/apriltag/apriltag-3.4.2-1.fc42.src.rpm Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=124633349 Target branches: rawhide f41 f40 epel9 epel8
Created attachment 2051202 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6873418 to 8123241
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8123241 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2173758-apriltag/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08123241-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.
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. [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", "BSD 2-Clause with views sentence", "MIT License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0". 29 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]: 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. [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 10386 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]: 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. [x]: %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-3.4.2-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm apriltag-devel-3.4.2-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm apriltag-debuginfo-3.4.2-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm apriltag-debugsource-3.4.2-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm apriltag-3.4.2-1.fc42.src.rpm ======================================== rpmlint session starts ======================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmppd84y1nx')] checks: 32, packages: 5 apriltag.src: E: spelling-error ('fiducial', 'Summary(en_US) fiducial -> fiduciary') apriltag.src: E: spelling-error ('fiducial', '%description -l en_US fiducial -> fiduciary') apriltag.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('fiducial', 'Summary(en_US) fiducial -> fiduciary') apriltag.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('fiducial', '%description -l en_US fiducial -> fiduciary') apriltag-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation == 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings, 30 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 11.3 s == Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: apriltag-debuginfo-3.4.2-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm ======================================== rpmlint session starts ======================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpznmiryko')] checks: 32, packages: 1 === 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 2.2 s === Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 4 apriltag.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('fiducial', 'Summary(en_US) fiducial -> fiduciary') apriltag.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('fiducial', '%description -l en_US fiducial -> fiduciary') apriltag-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 26 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 4.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/AprilRobotics/apriltag/archive/v3.4.2/apriltag-3.4.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7e021bab89f136aa3cf736f772a635aaa353f93f6f8859495f4bd8c519be4805 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7e021bab89f136aa3cf736f772a635aaa353f93f6f8859495f4bd8c519be4805 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.3.4.2-3.4.2-1.fc42.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 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, Haskell, Python, Ocaml, R, Perl, fonts, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Approved b) Patch has been merged: https://github.com/AprilRobotics/apriltag/pull/360 add a link to it in the spec file before importing
c) May also want to recommend opencv
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/apriltag
Ooh, I actually just noticed something. Benson, if my understanding is correct, this package is installing the CMake config to the wrong location. As an architecture-specific package, it should be put in /usr/lib64/apriltag/cmake and not /usr/share/apriltag/cmake as it is currently doing. Do you agree?
Yes, sorry missed that, cmake files usually go into %{_libdir}/%{name}/cmake Do send a patch upstream. A review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2319426 would be appreciated if time and expertise allow.
FEDORA-2024-0919a077d1 (apriltag-3.4.2-2.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-0919a077d1
FEDORA-2024-0919a077d1 (apriltag-3.4.2-2.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-f942e3bb51 (apriltag-3.4.2-2.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f942e3bb51
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-4c08d8e41c (apriltag-3.4.2-2.el8) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-4c08d8e41c
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-546d9cff67 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-546d9cff67 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-f942e3bb51 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-f942e3bb51 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f942e3bb51 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-3af9c8a9b6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-3af9c8a9b6 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-4c08d8e41c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-4c08d8e41c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-45d89b361a has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-45d89b361a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-45d89b361a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-f942e3bb51 (apriltag-3.4.2-2.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-546d9cff67 (apriltag-3.4.2-2.el9) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-3af9c8a9b6 (apriltag-3.4.2-2.el10_0) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-4c08d8e41c (apriltag-3.4.2-2.el8) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-45d89b361a (apriltag-3.4.2-2.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.