Bug 977112 - Review Request: CuraEngine - Engine for processing 3D models into G-code instructions for 3D printers
Review Request: CuraEngine - Engine for processing 3D models into G-code inst...
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Mario Ceresa
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2013-06-23 10:54 EDT by Miro Hrončok
Modified: 2013-08-02 18:03 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version: CuraEngine-13.06.3-2.fc18
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2013-08-02 18:03:25 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
mrceresa: fedora‑review+
petersen: fedora‑cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Miro Hrončok 2013-06-23 10:54:12 EDT
Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/hroncok/SPECS/master/CuraEngine.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/downloads/hroncok/SPECS/CuraEngine-13.06.3-1.fc18.src.rpm


CuraEngine is a C++ console application for 3D printing G-code generation. It
has been made as a better and faster alternative to the old Skeinforge engine.

This is just a console application for G-code generation. For a full graphical
application look at cura with is the graphical frontend for %{name}.

Fedora Account System Username: churchyard


#%%if 0%%{?fedora} > 18
Patch0:         %{name}-clipper51x.patch

I'll uncomment this condition once in git, but now it prevents SRPM generation on my Fedora 18 to include that patch for mock building on F19 and Rawhide.
Comment 1 Mario Ceresa 2013-07-03 05:46:05 EDT
I'll review it!
Comment 2 Mario Ceresa 2013-07-03 07:03:09 EDT
Hi Miro,
everything seems fine to me. I only have some minor questions:

* Could you post a koji build link? I have no access to the build system from this pc.
* Could you briefly comment the conditional patch and the build section directly in the spec file? 

Please answer the previous questions and I'll continue with the review.


Comment 4 Mario Ceresa 2013-07-04 11:27:23 EDT
Thanks Miro:

Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[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
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
[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.
[-]: 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.
[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
[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
[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 =====

[-]: 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.
[x]: 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
[x]: %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
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

===== EXTRA items =====

[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
[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.

Checking: CuraEngine-13.06.3-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
CuraEngine.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cura -> curs, cur, curia
CuraEngine.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end
CuraEngine.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary CuraEngine
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint CuraEngine
CuraEngine.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cura -> curs, cur, curia
CuraEngine.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end
CuraEngine.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary CuraEngine
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

CuraEngine (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Source checksums
https://github.com/Ultimaker/CuraEngine/archive/13.06.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 950cffc8f2157551edb56d21f2d9568a60f481b5a260dafc3da7e646cf4337b9
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 950cffc8f2157551edb56d21f2d9568a60f481b5a260dafc3da7e646cf4337b9

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 977112

I see no issues, so the package is

Comment 5 Miro Hrončok 2013-07-04 11:37:10 EDT
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: CuraEngine
Short Description:  Engine for processing 3D models into G-code instructions for 3D printers
Owners: churchyard
Branches: f18 f19
Comment 6 Jens Petersen 2013-07-04 21:22:57 EDT
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2013-07-05 07:04:29 EDT
CuraEngine-13.06.3-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2013-07-05 07:05:09 EDT
CuraEngine-13.06.3-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2013-07-05 20:56:06 EDT
CuraEngine-13.06.3-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2013-08-02 18:03:25 EDT
CuraEngine-13.06.3-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.

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