Bug 2353165 - Review Request: colorscad - Helps with exporting an OpenSCAD model with color information preserved.
Summary: Review Request: colorscad - Helps with exporting an OpenSCAD model with color...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Benson Muite
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2025-03-18 13:26 UTC by Jonny Heggheim
Modified: 2025-04-01 08:57 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2025-04-01 08:57:42 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
benson_muite: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8788399 to 8802290 (1005 bytes, patch)
2025-03-21 16:55 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff

Description Jonny Heggheim 2025-03-18 13:26:42 UTC
Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/colorscad.spec
SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/colorscad-0.6.1-1.fc41.src.rpm

Description:
This script helps with exporting an OpenSCAD model to AMF or 3MF format,
with color information preserved. The colors are simply assigned using
OpenSCADs color() statement, so generally speaking the output will look
like the preview (F5) view in OpenSCAD.

Fedora Account System Username: jonny

Comment 1 Jonny Heggheim 2025-03-18 13:26:46 UTC
This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=130437823

Comment 2 Fedora Review Service 2025-03-18 13:55:11 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8788399
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2353165-colorscad/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08788399-colorscad/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/colorscad/diff.txt
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
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 3 Jonny Heggheim 2025-03-21 12:36:21 UTC
I have updated the spec and SRPM files to use upstream version and added a patch

Comment 4 Jonny Heggheim 2025-03-21 12:38:48 UTC
New koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=130562142

Comment 5 Benson Muite 2025-03-21 16:24:39 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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", "MIT License". 28 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/OpenSCAD/2353165-
     colorscad/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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 10792 bytes in 3 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).
[ ]: 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.
[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]: 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: colorscad-0.6.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          colorscad-0.6.1-1.fc43.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.6.1
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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp4omeqi2o')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

colorscad.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Helps with exporting an OpenSCAD model with color information preserved.
colorscad.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot Helps with exporting an OpenSCAD model with color information preserved.
colorscad.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/colorscad/colors.scad
colorscad.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary 3mfmerge
colorscad.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary colorscad
colorscad.spec:25: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 25)
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: colorscad-debuginfo-0.6.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.6.1
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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpboyxl_me')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
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: 2

colorscad.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot Helps with exporting an OpenSCAD model with color information preserved.
colorscad.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/colorscad/colors.scad
colorscad.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary 3mfmerge
colorscad.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary colorscad
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/jschobben/colorscad/archive/v0.6.1/colorscad-0.6.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 55aba1e530a6a3da8b3fd5e3eda73cee5874305a485ca646a31dfbd652aa28eb
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 55aba1e530a6a3da8b3fd5e3eda73cee5874305a485ca646a31dfbd652aa28eb


Requires
--------
colorscad (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/bash
    lib3mf.so.2()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit)
    openscad
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    sed



Provides
--------
colorscad:
    colorscad
    colorscad(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2353165
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: R, Perl, Java, fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, Ocaml, PHP, Python
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Seems ok. Can the following errors be fixed:
colorscad.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Helps with exporting an OpenSCAD model with color information preserved.
colorscad.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot Helps with exporting an OpenSCAD model with color information preserved.
colorscad.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/colorscad/colors.scad
colorscad.spec:25: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 25)

Comment 6 Jonny Heggheim 2025-03-21 16:37:18 UTC
I will fix all the warnings. executable-perm + spaces/tabs will also be reported upstream.

Comment 7 Jonny Heggheim 2025-03-21 16:40:55 UTC
Oh, I found out that it was the spec file that contained mixing tabs and spaces. Will fix that.

Comment 8 Jonny Heggheim 2025-03-21 16:49:02 UTC
Updated spec and SRPM.

Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/colorscad.spec
SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/colorscad-0.6.1-1.fc41.src.rpm

Comment 9 Fedora Review Service 2025-03-21 16:55:45 UTC
Created attachment 2081265 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8788399 to 8802290

Comment 10 Fedora Review Service 2025-03-21 16:55:47 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8802290
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2353165-colorscad/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08802290-colorscad/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 11 Benson Muite 2025-03-22 12:59:43 UTC
Thanks. Approved.

Would appreciate review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353918 if time allows.  Can sponsor once it passes review.

Comment 12 Jonny Heggheim 2025-03-22 13:45:49 UTC
Thanks for the review, I will have time to review mankalaengine tomorrow.

Comment 13 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2025-03-22 13:49:36 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/colorscad


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.