Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: g3dviewer - A 3D file/object viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483863
Summary: Review Request: g3dviewer - A 3D file/object viewer Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fabian@bernewireless.net QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/g3dviewer.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/g3dviewer-0.2.99.4-1.fc10.src.rpm
Project URL: http://automagically.de/g3dviewer/
Description: G3DViewer is a 3D file viewer for GTK+ supporting a variety of file types:
* 3D Studio (.3ds, .prj) * LightWave (.lw, .lwb, .lwo) * Alias Wavefront (.obj) * Impulse TurboSilver / Imagine (.iob) * AutoCAD (.dxf) * Quake II Models (.md2) * Quake III Models (.md3) * Neutral File Format (.nff) * 3D Metafile (.3dmf, .3mf, .b3d) * Caligari TrueSpace Objects (.cob) * Quick3D Objects & Scenes (.q3o, q3s) * VRML 1.0 files (.wrl, .vrml) * AC3D objects (.ac, .acc) * LeoCAD Models (.lcd) * Racer car models (.ar, .dof) * Ultimate Stunts car models (.glb) * VDrift car models (.joe, .car) * COLLADA & G**gle Earth (.dae, .kmz) * LDraw (.dat, .mpd) * ASCII Scene Exporter (.ase)
Koji scratch build: depends on libg3d
rpmlint output: [fab@laptop24 i386]$ rpmlint g3dviewer* 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[fab@laptop24 SRPMS]$ rpmlint g3dviewer-0.2.99.4-1.fc10.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483863
Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |483859
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483863
Joshua Rosen bjrosen@polybus.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bjrosen@polybus.com
--- Comment #1 from Joshua Rosen bjrosen@polybus.com 2009-08-14 16:38:55 EDT --- This is an informal review, I'm just learning the packaging process.
I can't find libg3d-devel in any repository, where do I get it from?
Also wouldn't it be better to submit a package based on a recent version of this program? On the upstream site the current version is 0.8, this is for 0.2.99.4 which is from 2006.
# MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.[1] OK /home/bjrosen/rpmbuild/SPECS> rpmlint g3dviewer.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . OK # MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . OK # MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . ?? # MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . OK # MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] OK # MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] OK # MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] OK # MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source ** This is a 3 year old version, the current version is 0.0.8. Wouldn't it be better to submit a current package?" # MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. ?? # MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, ?? # MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires ?? # MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. ?? # MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths ?? # MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ?? # MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. ?? # MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. OK # MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, OK # MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK # MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK # MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK # MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. ?? # MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. ?? # MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. ?? # MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. ?? # MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). ?? # MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. ?? # MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK # MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.?? # MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. OK # MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK # MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK # MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 OK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483863
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jussi.lehtola@iki.fi AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jussi.lehtola@iki.fi Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-08-14 17:17:45 EDT --- Joshua: this bug depends on bug 483859, i.e. libg3d.
Taking over review.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483863
--- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-08-14 17:25:27 EDT --- Fabian: please update to newest version available.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483863
--- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2009-08-14 18:24:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1)
Also wouldn't it be better to submit a package based on a recent version of this program? On the upstream site the current version is 0.8, this is for 0.2.99.4 which is from 2006.
I can't find any details on the upstream website that 0.2.99.4 isn't the latest release. libg3d 0.0.8 was released at 2009-01-19.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483863
--- Comment #5 from Joshua Rosen bjrosen@polybus.com 2009-08-14 18:34:02 EDT --- I mistook the library for the application. It specifies libg3d for the 2009 releases whereas the 2006 releases just say Preview edition. I assumed they were the same but I was wrong.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483863
--- Comment #6 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-08-14 18:43:57 EDT --- Fooled me too, didn't check carefully enough :D
Joshua: please do the full review. You need to build the dependency first and build this package using it. It's possible in mock by making a local repository.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483863
--- Comment #7 from Joshua Rosen bjrosen@polybus.com 2009-08-16 18:24:04 EDT --- This is an informal review, I'm just learning the packaging process.
I've built and installed this package on 32 bit F11. The application appears on the Applications/Graphics menu which is the logical place for it. I starts up correctly.
# MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.[1] OK /home/bjrosen/rpmbuild/SPECS> rpmlint g3dviewer.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . OK # MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . OK # MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . OK # MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . OK # MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] OK # MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] OK # MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] OK # MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source. OK # MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. OK # MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, NA # MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires OK # MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK # MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths OK # MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, NA # MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. OK # MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. OK # MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, OK # MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK # MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK # MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK # MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. NA # MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. OK # MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK # MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK, --disable-static switch in the %build section # MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). NA # MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. OK # MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK # MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. OK # MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. OK # MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK # MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK # MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 OK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483863
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-08-17 02:41:53 EDT --- rpmlint output is clean.
MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. ~OK - For consistency I'd change %{_bindir}/g3d* to %{_bindir}/%{name} %{_bindir}/g3d-thumbnailer (It's better style to use %{name} consistently in %files.)
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Clean section exists. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. NEEDSWORK - Missing CREDITS.
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
**
Joshua: you missed the missing file in %doc. (However, we don't ship files related to installation such as INSTALL.)
**
The issues are minor; with these notes the package is
APPROVED
please fix the issues before CVS import.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483863
--- Comment #9 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2009-10-02 05:13:00 EDT --- Thanks guys...as soon libg3d (#483859) is done this package will go into the Fedora Package Collection
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483863
--- Comment #10 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2010-01-01 17:56:07 EDT --- OK, let's hope libg3d gets reviewed soon so that we can close this bug.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483863
Bug 483863 depends on bug 483859, which changed state.
Bug 483859 Summary: Review Request: libg3d - Library for 3D file/object viewer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483859
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |NOTABUG Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483863
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |WONTFIX Last Closed| |2011-12-16 04:58:55
--- Comment #11 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2011-12-16 04:58:55 EST --- Well, looks like libg3d isn't going anywhere, so there's no sense in keeping this bug open. Closing as WONTFIX.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla