Hide Forgot
Spec URL: http://babel.isa.uma.es/mrpt/src-repo/rpm/mrpt.spec SRPM URL: http://babel.isa.uma.es/mrpt/src-repo/rpm/mrpt-0.6.5svn714-1.src.rpm Description: The Mobile Robot Programming Toolkit (MRPT) is an extensive, cross-platform, and open source C++ library aimed to help robotics researchers to design and implement algorithms in the fields of Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM), computer vision, and motion planning (obstacle avoidance). The libraries include classes for easily managing 3D(6D) geometry, probability density functions (pdfs) over many predefined variables (points and poses, landmarks, maps), Bayesian inference (Kalman filters, particle filters), image processing, path planning and obstacle avoidance, 3D visualization of all kind of maps (points, occupancy grids, landmarks,...), etc. Gathering, manipulating and inspecting very large robotic datasets (Rawlogs) efficiently is another goal of MRPT, supported by several classes and applications. The MRPT is free software and is released under the GPL.
This is my first package, so I'm seeking a sponsor. Any feedback will be appreciated! Thanks.
Some notes - First of all, your package does not build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1029717 So I just check your spec file - After some long discussion, many Fedora contributors say that including the package name itself in its Summary is redundant. - By the way, is it really needed that the most part of %description is repeated on every subpackage? - For source tarball: I cannot see rev.714 tarball on the URL. Also your versioning of this srpm is not proper for Fedora. Please refer to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#SnapshotPackages ! Also please consider to use %{?dist} tag: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag - Please remove "Packager" item. This is automatically defined when rebuilding this srpm on Fedora site. - "%package -n mrpt-ann" can simply be replaced by "%package ann" (same for other subpackages) - Usually the dependencies between packages created from the same srpm must be EVR (Epoch:Version:Release) specific, not just name specific (i.e. usually should have "Requires: %{name}-mrpt = %{version}-%{release}", for example). - Packages containing pkgconfig .pc file must have "Requires: pkgconfig" (ref: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines ) - Currently I am not sure if koji supports noarch subpackages build when main package is arch dependent, however for now I doubt this (and other packages don't this so). So please remove "BuildArch: noarch" for -doc subpackage. - Make build.log more verbose (to check if compiler options are correctly honored, for example). "make VERBOSE=1" seems to work for this package (ref: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/cmake ) - Pleae call "make documentation_html" at %build stage (By the way, why is it needed to call "make %?_smp_mflags" at %install ?) - Please take care of directory ownership issue. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UnownedDirectories - This package must not own %{_datadir}/applications/, %{_libdir}/pkgconfig or so - Instead %_datadir/%name is not owned by any packages - %post -n mrpt-apps -p '/usr/bin/update-mime-database /usr/share/mime' This cannot be done (you can simply think that this method can be used only for calling /sbin/ldconfig with no other additional scripts) - For %changelog format, please follow https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs
Mamoru, thanks a lot for all the notes! I'll write here again when I can process all the information and fix everything.
Well, I've fixed all the issues commented by Mamoru Tasaka, plus: - Use of the release version 0.6.4 instead of the SVN snapshot, since there are no important changes and that seems to complicate a lot the naming of packages. - Added missing build dependencies. - Added generation of man pages, forgotten in the previous version. By the way, is there any specific command within %files for installing man-pages? I've added them manually with %{_datadir}/man/man1/* These are the NEW files: Spec URL: http://babel.isa.uma.es/mrpt/src-repo/rpm/mrpt.spec SRPM URL: http://babel.isa.uma.es/mrpt/src-repo/rpm/mrpt-0.6.4-1.fc10.src.rpm About the repetition of %description, I've shortened all the texts, leaving only one short part common to all the sub-packages. I think everything is now much more aligned to Fedora policies. Let me know if there are new errors. Thanks.
Well, - On x86_64 test fails: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1035263 - On ppc it doesn't build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1035304
It's wierd... The error on ppc seems to come from a compiler flag only present on one of the libraries, and not the others. I think I've fixed it, please re-download the files: Spec URL: http://babel.isa.uma.es/mrpt/src-repo/rpm/mrpt.spec SRPM URL: http://babel.isa.uma.es/mrpt/src-repo/rpm/mrpt-0.6.4-1.fc10.src.rpm About %check, I've enabled a more verbose output to figure out what's going on there... the same code has compiled & tested OK on all platforms in Debian & Ubuntu autobuild machines, so I have no idea what's wrong here... If the more verbose output does not give any clue, I think the %check section could be removed as the last choice. Regards, JL
Before I check your srpm: Please change the release number every time you modify your srpm/spec to avoid confusion: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FrequentlyMadeMistakes
All right, done. Here are the new files then: Spec URL: http://babel.isa.uma.es/mrpt/src-repo/rpm/mrpt.spec SRPM URL: http://babel.isa.uma.es/mrpt/src-repo/rpm/mrpt-0.6.4-2.fc10.src.rpm
Created attachment 328632 [details] rpmlint for binary rpms Well, for 0.6.4-2: ** Description etc * License - License tag should be "GPLv3+". * Source - Source tarball in your srpm differs from what I could download from the Source URL in your spec: ------------------------------------------------ 9773759 2009-01-09 00:43 mrpt-0.6.4.tar.gz 9773812 2009-01-09 00:51 mrpt-0.6.4-2.fc10.src/mrpt-0.6.4.tar.gz ------------------------------------------------ * BuildRequires: - build.log says: ------------------------------------------------ 107 -- Looking for doxygen... 108 -- Looking for doxygen... - found /usr/bin/doxygen 109 -- Looking for dot tool... 110 -- Looking for dot tool... - NOT found ------------------------------------------------ Perhaps "BuildRequires: graphviz" is missing. ** %prep -> %install * Build failure - Currently your srpm does not build by 4 reasons. 1 %check fails as http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1042528 This is because at "make test" this test needs system-widely installed libmrpt-core.so.0.6, but on mockbuild apparently this library is not yet installed system-widely. 2 The rebuilt libraries like libmrpt-core.so.0.6 are installed under %buildroot/usr/lib, not %buildroot%_libdir even with 64 bits architecture 3 CMakeLists.txt adds "-mtune=native" to CPPFLAGS, which is not recognized on ppc (maybe also on ppc64) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1042483 Also, CMakeLists.txt adds "-O3" compilation option, however Fedora default optimation level is "-O2" so this should be removed. 4 %files lists are wrong. Some files are installed under %{_datadir}/mrpt/datasets/ but no files are installed under %{_datadir}/mrpt/config_files/datasets/ Possible solution: - For 2,3: at %prep: ------------------------------------------- %prep %setup -q sed -i.misc \ -e 's|-O3|-O2|' \ -e 's|-mtune=native||' \ -e '/DESTINATION/s|PREFIX}lib|PREFIX}lib\${LIB_SUFFIX}|' \ $(find . -name CMakeLists.txt) ------------------------------------------- - For 1: at %check: ------------------------------------------- %check export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$(pwd)/lib make test VERBOSE=1 ARGS="-VV" ------------------------------------------- - For 4: Check %files list ** %files, etc * Package splitting - First of all, please explain why you want to split each library into different subpackges. * desktop files - desktop-file-install or so must be executed against desktop files to be installed. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage * Scriptlets - Some files has MimeType, so please refer to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database - This package installs XML files under %_datadir/mime/packages: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#mimeinfo * Directory ownership - The directory %{_datadir}/mrpt is owned by 2 packages. Please change this so that only one package owns this directory ( I guess having this directory owned by -core package is an alternative solution) - %{_datadir}/doc/mrpt-doc/ is not owned by any packages. * pkgconfig - pkgconfig/libmrpt.pc.in contains: -------------------------------------------- 3 libdir=${exec_prefix}/lib -------------------------------------------- This is expanded as /usr/lib, even on 64 bits architecture, while this should be expanded as /usr/lib64. - Also installed libmrpt.pc contains: -------------------------------------------- 9 Libs: -L${libdir} -ldc1394 -lGL -lGLU -lglut -lftdi -lusb -l3ds -lz -ljpeg -lrt -pthread -lmrpt-ann /usr/lib64/libboost_program_options-mt.so -pthread -lwx_baseu-2.8 -lwx_gtk2u_core-2.8 -lwx_gtk2u_gl-2.8 -lwx_gtk2u_adv-2.8 -lwx_gtk2u_aui-2.8 -lmrpt-core -lmrpt-aria -------------------------------------------- Please check if these explicit linkage lists are _really_ needed. I guess almost all of these can be removed if the installed libraries are already properly linked. Also, note that each "-lfoo" entry adds each corresponding package dependency to mrpt-devel package. For example "-lglut" means -devel package should have "Requires: freeglut-devel", while I don't think this is needed. * Header files dependency - Please check if proper dependency packages are installed with -devel packages to satisfy "include" macro dependencies in header files. - For example, gui/WxUtils.h contains --------------------------------------------- 40 #include <wx/sizer.h> 41 #include <wx/statbmp.h> 42 #include <wx/menu.h> --------------------------------------------- This means that mrpt-devel package should have "Requires: wxGTK-devel" (not wxGTK). * Duplicate files - Please check if all subpackages need "doc COPYING" or so. Also "%doc foo" creates its own document directory (named /usr/share/doc/mrpt-foo-%{version}) for each subpackage. Especially -doc subpackage has two document directories (/usr/share/doc/mrpt-doc and /usr/share/doc/mrpt-doc-%{version}) I suggest these directories should be unified. * rpmlint issue rpmlint output attached. - Please change non-UTF8 files to UTF-8 encoding - Usually libraries themselves should not call exit() (see $ rpmlint -I shared-lib-calls-exit) - Many files has Windows-like line terminators. Please fix these by "sed -i -e 's|\r||g'" or dos2unix
ping?
Sorry for the delay... Yes, I read everything and have some things already solved, other still pending. I wanted to ask you about some small doubts: 1) Until now, I'm building rpms/srpms by invoking: "rpmbuild -ta TARBALL.tar.gz", where the .spec file is inside the tarball. I guess this is not the best practice, since any change in the spec file requires an update of the whole tarball. I've read the rpmbuild manpage but not found a command such as "rpmbuild -ta TARBALL.tar.gz <SOME-FLAG> mrpt.spec" which allows me to provide the spec file separately. Any ideas about this? 2) "Package-splitting: First of all, please explain why you want to split each library into different subpackges." I understand here the splitting into "mrpt-XXX" library packages, right? My intention is to separate dependencies, so an application (in a future package) might require only a subset of the libs. Do you want me to explicitly explain this in comments in the spec file? Again, thanks a lot for all the time you're expending on the review. I think I'll upload a new revised version by the next week.
I've solved my previous point (1) about rpmbuild and tarballs.
(In reply to comment #11) > Sorry for the delay... Yes, I read everything and have some things already > solved, other still pending. > > I wanted to ask you about some small doubts: > > 1) Until now, I'm building rpms/srpms by invoking: "rpmbuild -ta > TARBALL.tar.gz", where the .spec file is inside the tarball. I guess this is > not the best practice, since any change in the spec file requires an update of > the whole tarball. I've read the rpmbuild manpage but not found a command such > as "rpmbuild -ta TARBALL.tar.gz <SOME-FLAG> mrpt.spec" which allows me to > provide the spec file separately. Any ideas about this? - Please use $ rpmbuild -ba foo.spec . > 2) "Package-splitting: First of all, please explain why you want to split each > library into different subpackges." I understand here the splitting into > "mrpt-XXX" library packages, right? - Yes. > My intention is to separate dependencies, > so an application (in a future package) might require only a subset of the > libs. Do you want me to explicitly explain this in comments in the spec file? - Please.
Well, here is the new revision: SPEC: http://babel.isa.uma.es/mrpt/src-repo/rpm/mrpt.spec SRPM: http://babel.isa.uma.es/mrpt/src-repo/rpm/mrpt-0.6.5-0.1.20090118svn746.fc10.src.rpm I finally decided to use the "snapshot versions format" so I can integrate all the fixes in upstream. btw, if I got it right, a package, say "foo-1.2.3-0.1.20090118svn" MUST have an associated tarball "foo-1.2.3.tar.gz", without any indication of the snapshot?? I'd prefer more descriptive names containing the snapshot part, so please confirm me if that is the preferred naming or I can create tarballs with the svn number prefix. Next are the answers to your points: (In reply to comment #9) > ** Description etc > * License > - License tag should be "GPLv3+". Done. > * BuildRequires: > - build.log says: > ------------------------------------------------ > 107 -- Looking for doxygen... > 108 -- Looking for doxygen... - found /usr/bin/doxygen > 109 -- Looking for dot tool... > 110 -- Looking for dot tool... - NOT found > ------------------------------------------------ > Perhaps "BuildRequires: graphviz" is missing. This is not an issue. "dot" is actually not used. In fact the CMake command is "look for doxygen", but it internally also looks for dot... > ** %prep -> %install > * Build failure > - Currently your srpm does not build by 4 reasons. > 1 %check fails as > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1042528 > This is because at "make test" this test needs > system-widely installed libmrpt-core.so.0.6, but on mockbuild > apparently this library is not yet installed system-widely. Fixed with your "LD_LIBRARY_PATH..." solution. > 2 The rebuilt libraries like libmrpt-core.so.0.6 are installed > under %buildroot/usr/lib, not %buildroot%_libdir even with > 64 bits architecture Fixed in upstream CMakeLists.txt's. > 3 CMakeLists.txt adds "-mtune=native" to CPPFLAGS, which > is not recognized on ppc (maybe also on ppc64) > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1042483 > Also, CMakeLists.txt adds "-O3" compilation option, however > Fedora default optimation level is "-O2" so this should > be removed. Fixed through a cmake argument "-DCMAKE_MRPT_IS_RPM_PACKAGE=1" which internally disables "-mtune" and "O3". > 4 %files lists are wrong. Some files are installed > under %{_datadir}/mrpt/datasets/ but no files are installed > under %{_datadir}/mrpt/config_files/datasets/ Solved. > ** %files, etc > * Package splitting > - First of all, please explain why you want to split each > library into different subpackges. Comments added to specfile. > * desktop files > - desktop-file-install or so must be executed against > desktop files to be installed. Done, at %install. > > * Scriptlets > - Some files has MimeType, so please refer to: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database > > - This package installs XML files under %_datadir/mime/packages: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#mimeinfo Both done at %post/postun of mrpt-apps. > * Directory ownership > - The directory %{_datadir}/mrpt is owned by 2 packages. Please > change this so that only one package owns this directory > ( I guess having this directory owned by -core package is > an alternative solution) The -core package now owns that directory. > - %{_datadir}/doc/mrpt-doc/ is not owned by any packages. It's now of the package "mrpt-doc". > * pkgconfig > - pkgconfig/libmrpt.pc.in contains: > -------------------------------------------- > 3 libdir=${exec_prefix}/lib > -------------------------------------------- > This is expanded as /usr/lib, even on 64 bits architecture, > while this should be expanded as /usr/lib64. Fixed using the LIB_SUFFIX variable in CMake (not tested...). > - Also installed libmrpt.pc contains: > -------------------------------------------- > 9 Libs: -L${libdir} -ldc1394 -lGL -lGLU -lglut -lftdi -lusb -l3ds -lz > -ljpeg -lrt -pthread -lmrpt-ann /usr/lib64/libboost_program_options-mt.so > -pthread -lwx_baseu-2.8 -lwx_gtk2u_core-2.8 -lwx_gtk2u_gl-2.8 > -lwx_gtk2u_adv-2.8 -lwx_gtk2u_aui-2.8 -lmrpt-core -lmrpt-aria > -------------------------------------------- You're right! Most of the -lxxx were not required. > * Header files dependency > - Please check if proper dependency packages are installed > with -devel packages to satisfy "include" macro dependencies > in header files. > - For example, gui/WxUtils.h contains > --------------------------------------------- > 40 #include <wx/sizer.h> > 41 #include <wx/statbmp.h> > 42 #include <wx/menu.h> > --------------------------------------------- > This means that mrpt-devel package should have "Requires: wxGTK-devel" > (not wxGTK). Ok, done. > * Duplicate files > - Please check if all subpackages need "doc COPYING" or so. > Also "%doc foo" creates its own document directory (named > /usr/share/doc/mrpt-foo-%{version}) for each subpackage. I tried removing COPYING and README, but rpmlint complains about packages without documentation, so I finally left them. > Especially -doc subpackage has two document directories > (/usr/share/doc/mrpt-doc and /usr/share/doc/mrpt-doc-%{version}) > I suggest these directories should be unified. Done, /usr/share/doc/mrpt-doc is the only directory now. > * rpmlint issue > rpmlint output attached. > - Please change non-UTF8 files to UTF-8 encoding > - Usually libraries themselves should not call exit() > (see $ rpmlint -I shared-lib-calls-exit) > - Many files has Windows-like line terminators. > Please fix these by "sed -i -e 's|\r||g'" or dos2unix All fixed.
Well, I have not checked your latest srpm yet (currently I just verified that your latest srpm builds), however: ------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Before being sponsored: This package will may be accepted with another few work (in fact I have not checked your latest srpm yet...) But before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) must sponsor you. Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally. For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) are required to "show that you have an understanding of the process and of the packaging guidelines" as is described on : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored Usually there are two ways to show this. A. submit other review requests with enough quality. B. Do a "pre-review" of other person's review request (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do a formal review) When you have submitted a new review request or have pre-reviewed other person's review request, please write the bug number on this bug report so that I can check your comments or review request. Fedora package collection review requests which are waiting for someone to review can be checked on: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html (NOTE: please don't choose "Merge Review") Review guidelines are described mainly on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
Ok, copy that.
For 0.6.5-0.1: * Tarball - For svn repo based tarball, please follow https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control * BuildRequires - Some reviewers may say that "BuildRequires: tex(latex) tex(dvips)" is preferred. (In reply to comment #14) > btw, if I got it right, a package, say "foo-1.2.3-0.1.20090118svn" MUST have an > associated tarball > "foo-1.2.3.tar.gz", without any indication of the snapshot?? Including revision number in tarball name is highly recommeded. * Dependency for -devel subpackage - Requires: opencv is not needed. - For this package "Requires: opencv-devel" does not seem to be needed, either. * Compiler flags - On some parts Fedora specific compiler flags are not honored. For example: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 179 /usr/bin/cmake -E cmake_progress_report /builddir/build/BUILD/mrpt-0.6.5/CMakeFiles 180 [ 1%] 181 Building CXX object otherlibs/aria-2.5.1/src/CMakeFiles/mrpt-aria.dir/ArAction.o 182 cd /builddir/build/BUILD/mrpt-0.6.5/otherlibs/aria-2.5.1/src && /usr/bin/c++ -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_LARGE_FILES -D__WXGTK__ -Dmrpt_aria_EXPORTS -O2 -fPIC -D_REENTRANT -fno-exceptions -pthread -fPIC -I/usr/include/opencv -isystem /usr/lib/wx/include/gtk2-unicode-release-2.8 -isystem /usr/include/wx-2.8 -I/builddir/build/BUILD/mrpt-0.6.5/. -I/builddir/build/BUILD/mrpt-0.6.5/include/mrpt-config/unix -I/builddir/build/BUILD/mrpt-0.6.5/include -I/builddir/build/BUILD/mrpt-0.6.5/include/mrpt/otherlibs -I/builddir/build/BUILD/mrpt-0.6.5/include/mrpt/otherlibs/aria -o CMakeFiles/mrpt-aria.dir/ArAction.o -c /builddir/build/BUILD/mrpt-0.6.5/otherlibs/aria-2.5.1/src/ArAction.cpp -------------------------------------------------------------------------- (I usually check this by seeking for the word "FORTIFY") * Directory ownership issue - -doc subpackage should own %{_datadir}/doc/mrpt-doc/ directory. Also I will wait for your another review request or your pre-review of other person's review request.
Thanks Mamoru! Give me a few days for the changes. And about the other review, I'll probably pick something from: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WishList Anyway: Is there any way to see the (latest) build logs at Koji? I've tried looking for "mrpt" without success... I guess the builds there are different from those in my Fedora. For example, there's a "-g" and a "-mcpu" making their way to CFLAGS and I cannot find where to remove it (some rpm config file?), and I wondered if they're not in the Koji builds.
(In reply to comment #18) > Anyway: Is there any way to see the (latest) build logs at Koji? > I've tried looking for "mrpt" without success... Here you mean that you want to see my scratch build of your latest mrpt srpm on koji? Currently mrpt is not imported into Fedora (as it is currently under review here), so searching mrpt on koji returns nothing. For my scratch build, please check: For F-11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1076797 For F-10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1076808 ! Note For my scratch build on koji done less than one week ago, they are preserved on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/scratch/mtasaka/ > I guess the builds there are > different from those in my Fedora. For example, there's a "-g" and a "-mcpu" > making their way to CFLAGS and I cannot find where to remove it (some rpm > config file?), and I wondered if they're not in the Koji builds. For -mcpu I don't know, however for -g %optflags also contains "-g" option and this must not be removed (to create debuginfo rpm)
(In reply to comment #19) > For my scratch build, please check: > For F-11: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1076797 > For F-10: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1076808 > ! Note > For my scratch build on koji done less than one week ago, > they are preserved on: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/scratch/mtasaka/ > That was exactly what I was looking for, thanks! Now with the build.log I understand that about "FORTIFY" :-)
(The submitter replied to me that update will come in a few days)
My other submission, "cutecom": https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485636
And this is the new review of MRPT: SPEC: http://babel.isa.uma.es/mrpt/src-repo/rpm/mrpt.spec SRPM: http://babel.isa.uma.es/mrpt/src-repo/rpm/mrpt-0.6.5-0.1.20090213.fc10.src.rpm Apart from the issues you detected, these are the additional changes: * Sat Feb 13 2009 - Jose Luis Blanco <joseluisblancoc@gmail.com> 0.6.5-0.1.20090213 - New upstream sources. - Individual packages created for each MRPT application. - Removed unneeded dependencies from -devel package. - Fixed "doc" package should own the mrpt-doc directory. - Mime types moved to mrpt-core package.
Well, would you explain why you want to split each binaries into different subpackages? I don't think people using mrpt can get much gain , and the naming of subpackages seems confusing because from the first look some subpackages have names which don't seem to be related to mrpt.
(In reply to comment #25) > Well, would you explain why you want to split each binaries into > different subpackages? I don't think people using mrpt can get > much gain , and the naming of subpackages seems confusing because > from the first look some subpackages have names which don't seem > to be related to mrpt. Honestly, I wasn't unsure about this split. On the one hand, I do see a gain as many people will not use all mrpt programs, so they can install what I guess are the most useful ones. Each subpackage carries its own executable, plus a subdirectory in /share/ with sample script/configuration files, so I also see a good thing that only those files of the programs of interest are installed. OTOH, I have to admit that the package namespace is messed up with this change, while there's not a huge gain in disk space. If your final opinion is to leave all programs in mrpt-apps, I would see that fine. In that case, I might also join "mrpt-example-datasets" back into "mrpt-apps" as it was in the beginning.
(In reply to comment #26) > If your final opinion is to leave all programs in mrpt-apps, I would see that > fine. In that case, I might also join "mrpt-example-datasets" back into > "mrpt-apps" as it was in the beginning. I think this idea (i.e. putting all programs in mrpt-apps) is much better. Some comments - For tarball based on svn repository, I prefer to include revision number rather than the date you checked the source because revision number identifies the codes used in the srpm, however this is left to your choice.
Perfect! These are the new versions then: SPEC: http://babel.isa.uma.es/mrpt/src-repo/rpm/mrpt.spec SRPM: http://babel.isa.uma.es/mrpt/src-repo/rpm/mrpt-0.6.5-0.2.20090213svn807.fc10.src.rpm
I forgot to comment something: > - For tarball based on svn repository, I prefer to include revision > number rather than the date you checked the source because revision > number identifies the codes used in the srpm, however this is > left to your choice. I've used the svn number of the main mrpt repository, which is different from the SVN URL given within the SPEC file. The reason is that one directory of MRPT contains "prohibited code" (patent-pending) so I created a separate SVN repository just for publishing "clean releases", and that is the one referenced in the specfile. That's why I didn't add the "svn -r NUMBER" to the comments there, but just the svn URL. However, this is not a problem, since this reference can be seen as a svn "tag" directory, not the trunk, and it'll not change in the future.
For 0.6.5-0.2: * Directory/file ownership issue - Now -core and -apps subpackages own some same files. I guess your intention is to move these files from -apps to -core (currently -apps Requires -core, so this is okay) - Related to this, scriptlets for -apps subpackage should no longer be needed. I think you will fix this when you import this package into Fedora CVS. ! I glanced at your another review request (bug 485636 for cutecom) and seems good from a quick look. Unfortunately it may be that I don't have time to review your another review request soon, however I will pay attention to it. ------------------------------------------------------------------- This package (mrpt) is now APPROVED by mtasaka ------------------------------------------------------------------- Please follow the procedure written on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join from "Install the Client Tools (Koji)". Now I am sponsoring you. If you want to import this package into Fedora 9/10, you also have to look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT (after once you rebuilt this package on koji Fedora rebuilding system). If you have questions, please ask me. Removing NEEDSPONSOR.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: mrpt Short Description: Libraries and programs for mobile robot SLAM and navigation Owners: joseluisblancoc Branches: F-9 F-10
Specified owner ID joseluisblancoc does not have a Fedora Account Can you check and confirm thats your Fedora Account?
Kevin, you're right. My account there is: jlblanco Sorry for the inconveniences.
Thanks. cvs done.
mrpt-0.6.5-0.3.20090213svn807.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: mrpt New Branches: F-11 Owners: jlblanco Thanks.
There already is a F-11 branch of this package. Make sure you do a 'cvs update -d' to get new directories.