Spec URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/urdfdom/urdfdom.spec SRPM URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/urdfdom/urdfdom-0.2.3-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: The URDF (U-Robot Description Format) library provides core data structures and a simple XML parsers for populating the class data structures from an URDF file Fedora Account System Username: rmattes
Updated to latest upstream release: Spec URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/urdfdom/urdfdom.spec SRPM URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/urdfdom/urdfdom-0.2.7-1.fc18.src.rpm rpmlint output: $ rpmlint urdfdom.spec ../RPMS/x86_64/urdfdom-* urdfdom.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: urdfdom-0.2.7.tar.bz2 urdfdom.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers urdfdom.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/liburdfdom_sensor.so liburdfdom_sensor.so urdfdom.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/liburdfdom_world.so liburdfdom_world.so urdfdom.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/liburdfdom_model_state.so liburdfdom_model_state.so urdfdom.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/liburdfdom_model.so liburdfdom_model.so urdfdom.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary check_urdf urdfdom.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary urdf_mem_test urdfdom.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary urdf_to_graphiz urdfdom-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 6 warnings. I think this invalid soname error is new. It's currently creating whatever CMake defaults to, and I'm not sure it's against the packaging guidelines.
Hi Rich, I'll review it. Best, Mario
Hi Rich, I have some minor issues here: * Please set CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE to either Release or RelWithDebInfo. Upstream might change their default without notice. I usually put RelWithDebInfo: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1239845/build-mode-relwithdebinfo but I have no strong opinion here. * Did you notice upstream changed from bitbucket to github? https://github.com/ros/urdfdom You should update accordingly the spec-file and generate-tarball or just use the links provided at: https://github.com/ros/urdfdom/releases * Latest release is 0.2.8 :) As per the libraries with missing soname, I fear it is a real error. There are at least two alternatives here: (1) You could contact upstream and ask them to add soname information to cmake files (probably the best way because they will manage ABI/API breakage) (2) If upstream is not responsive, you could manually add soname info like that: --- Top CMakeLists.txt ----- +set (URDF_API_VERSION ${URDF_MAJOR_VERSION}.${URDF_MINOR_VERSION}) + +SET(URDF_LIBRARY_PROPERTIES + VERSION "${URDF_VERSION}" + SOVERSION "${URDF_API_VERSION}" +) ------------------------------- --- urdf_parser/CMakeLists.txt ----- +SET_TARGET_PROPERTIES(urdfdom_world PROPERTIES ${URDF_LIBRARY_PROPERTIES}) +SET_TARGET_PROPERTIES(urdfdom_model PROPERTIES ${URDF_LIBRARY_PROPERTIES}) +SET_TARGET_PROPERTIES(urdfdom_sensor PROPERTIES ${URDF_LIBRARY_PROPERTIES}) +SET_TARGET_PROPERTIES(urdfdom_model_state PROPERTIES ${URDF_LIBRARY_PROPERTIES}) ------------------------------------- Please comment on my previous issues and I'll continue the review. Best, Mario
Hi Mario, The build type is set to none because CMake's default build flags for release and relwithdebinfo aren't that useful: they just duplicate some of Fedora's optflags. Upstream doesn't set any custom build flags at the moment, but I'll go ahead and switch it to RelWithDebInfo anyway. I've submitted a ticket upstream[1] asking about adding library versioning. In the meantime, I've got an update to 0.2.8 here: Spec URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/urdfdom/urdfdom.spec SRPM URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/urdfdom/urdfdom-0.2.8-1.fc19.src.rpm It requires urdfdom-headers-0.2.3, which I've just built and submitted for f19, f18 and el6 (it's also built in rawhide). $ rpmlint ./urdfdom.spec ../RPMS/x86_64/urdfdom-* urdfdom.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/liburdfdom_sensor.so liburdfdom_sensor.so urdfdom.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/liburdfdom_world.so liburdfdom_world.so urdfdom.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/liburdfdom_model_state.so liburdfdom_model_state.so urdfdom.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/liburdfdom_model.so liburdfdom_model.so urdfdom.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary check_urdf urdfdom.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary urdf_mem_test urdfdom.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary urdf_to_graphiz urdfdom-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 4 warnings. [1] https://github.com/ros/urdfdom/issues/6
Hi Rich, the devel version provides sonames but the released ones no. I think the easier way is to just use the following patch from master branch: https://github.com/ros/urdfdom/commit/6295b5bdfcbca13a8842d1912f9c5dbe4b1769e5 And drop it when next version is released. Did you noticed the warning on the bitbucket page? --------------------------------------- NOTE 13 Aug 2013: This repository has moved to Github: https://github.com/ros/urdfdom This location will be removed in the near future. ---------------------------------------
I didn't notice that they moved to github until after you said something in comment 3. That's why I reported the issue on github and changed the spec to use the github release url as Source0. Anyway, when I made the report I was only looking at the 0.2.8 release tag, not master. So i closed it out and backported the soname commit from upstream. You can find the update here: Spec URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/urdfdom/urdfdom.spec SRPM URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/urdfdom/urdfdom-0.2.8-2.fc19.src.rpm $ rpmlint ./urdfdom.spec ../RPMS/x86_64/urdfdom-* urdfdom.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary check_urdf urdfdom.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary urdf_mem_test urdfdom.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary urdf_to_graphiz urdfdom-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
Hi Rich! I can't mockbuild the package: --------------------------- In function 'bool urdf::parseLink(urdf::Link&, TiXmlElement*)': urdf_parser/src/link.cpp:463:12: error: 'class urdf::Link' has no member named 'visual_array' --------------------------- Also the following scratch build failed, for f19: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5836143 However, it indeed works on rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5836129 and on f20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5836217 It might just be to different compiler options, just out of curiosity, how did you create your last binary packages?
I noted in comment 4 that urdfdom 0.2.8 requires urdfdom-headers-0.2.3. I just built and submitted urdfdom-headers-0.2.3 on Monday (as I was writing out the comment,) so it's still in updates-testing for f19 and f18. So it will only build on rawhide until I can submit the update to stable for f19 and f18 next week.
Hi Rich, that's fine for me, here it goes the formal review: 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [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]: %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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mario/fedora/871205-urdfdom/licensecheck.txt --> It's okay it's a small test code with no license [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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 %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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 [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). ===== 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]: 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. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: urdfdom-0.2.8-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm urdfdom-devel-0.2.8-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm urdfdom.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary check_urdf urdfdom.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary urdf_mem_test urdfdom.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary urdf_to_graphiz urdfdom-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. ----> Harmless Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint urdfdom-devel urdfdom urdfdom-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation urdfdom.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liburdfdom_world.so.0.2 /lib64/libboost_thread.so.1.54.0 urdfdom.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liburdfdom_world.so.0.2 /lib64/libboost_system.so.1.54.0 urdfdom.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liburdfdom_sensor.so.0.2 /lib64/libboost_thread.so.1.54.0 urdfdom.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liburdfdom_sensor.so.0.2 /lib64/libboost_system.so.1.54.0 urdfdom.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liburdfdom_sensor.so.0.2 /lib64/libm.so.6 urdfdom.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liburdfdom_model_state.so.0.2 /lib64/libboost_thread.so.1.54.0 urdfdom.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liburdfdom_model_state.so.0.2 /lib64/libboost_system.so.1.54.0 urdfdom.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liburdfdom_model.so.0.2 /lib64/libboost_thread.so.1.54.0 urdfdom.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liburdfdom_model.so.0.2 /lib64/libboost_system.so.1.54.0 urdfdom.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary check_urdf urdfdom.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary urdf_mem_test urdfdom.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary urdf_to_graphiz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' ----> This usually means that there are unused libraries linked in. It should be harmless but maybe you might file an upstream bug about this? Requires -------- urdfdom-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config liburdfdom_model.so.0.2()(64bit) liburdfdom_model_state.so.0.2()(64bit) liburdfdom_sensor.so.0.2()(64bit) liburdfdom_world.so.0.2()(64bit) pkgconfig(console_bridge) pkgconfig(urdfdom_headers) urdfdom(x86-64) urdfdom (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libboost_system.so.1.54.0()(64bit) libboost_thread.so.1.54.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libconsole_bridge.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libtinyxml.so.0()(64bit) liburdfdom_model.so.0.2()(64bit) liburdfdom_world.so.0.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- urdfdom-devel: pkgconfig(urdfdom) urdfdom-devel urdfdom-devel(x86-64) urdfdom: liburdfdom_model.so.0.2()(64bit) liburdfdom_model_state.so.0.2()(64bit) liburdfdom_sensor.so.0.2()(64bit) liburdfdom_world.so.0.2()(64bit) urdfdom urdfdom(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ros/urdfdom/archive/99671a12b4c6794341bc6f71ce0cf08448cace68/urdfdom-0.2.8-99671a1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c42b8a24eb601a43bd25c7399f6e54f63c2a335becc63d34e6e4d50f4ed5d4b9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c42b8a24eb601a43bd25c7399f6e54f63c2a335becc63d34e6e4d50f4ed5d4b9 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 871205 I see no other issues, except the "unused-direct-shlib-dependency" rpmlint warning which is harmless (even if you might want to file a bug upstream for future reference). The the package is: *APPROVED* Great work! Mario
Thanks for the review Mario! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: urdfdom Short Description: U-Robot Description Format Document Object Model Owners: rmattes Branches: f20 f19 f18 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Package built in all branches.