[Bug 1338339] Review Request: openrave - Open Robotics Automation Virtual Environment

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1338339



--- Comment #16 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande@xxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #14)
> Spec URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/openrave.spec
> SRPM URL:
> https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/openrave-0.9.0-0.17.git8bfb8a6.fc24.src.rpm
> 
> scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15091234
> 
> Thank you for your comments!
> 
> (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #13)
> > Issues:
> > =======
> > - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
> >   Note: python2-openrave : /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
> >   packages/openravepy/_openravepy_/ikfast.h
> >   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
> > 
> >   I'm not sure where python header files must be installed, but i guess they
> > should be pushed under an include directory. 
> 
> I moved them to /usr/include/openrave/openrave, where the other header files
> are located, too. I'm not 100% sure if this is the right location, though.
> 
> 
> > 
> > - plugins/rplanners/ParabolicPathSmooth (BSD)
> >  These files are involved in the building and licensed under BSD  license.
> >  I think, you should include BSD with LGPLv3+ and ASL 2.0
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> 
> > 
> > - examples/doormanipulation/SetupWAMScene.m
> >   examples/doormanipulation/rundoormanipulation.m
> >  are licensed under GPLv3+; this license should be included in the
> >  octave sub-package.
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> 
> > 
> > - Bundled plugins/include/boost/* files should be erased
> 
> Done. I also added a Provides: for the bundled boost-numeric-bindings. I
> looked into this: The bindings are not available in any package and it
> doesn't make sense to package them, as the bindings used in openrave are an
> old version (version 1), while there are newer, incompatible bindings.
> 
> 
> > 
> > - %{_datadir}/%{name} is not owned
> 
> Are you sure? The Spec has "%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}" in the files list, and
> rpmls confirms that the directory is owned by the package.
> 

Sorry, i did not seen that line.
Why %{_datadir}/%{name} is owned by main package even if it does not provide
files under %{_datadir}/%{name}?

I guess %{_datadir}/%{name} directory can be co-owned by '-devel' and 'models'
sub-packages only.

> 
> > 
> > - Latest stable released version is the 0.8.2
> >   Are you sure this is not a pre-release of 0.9.0 ?
> 
> Not 100%. I changed to the pre-release versioning scheme. I contacted
> upstream about this, but they haven't responded. But switching from
> pre-release to post-release is easier than vice versa, so I'll stick with
> the pre-release versioning for now.
> 
> > 
> > - There are tests. Why are not performed ?
> 
> The tests require openrave to be installed, e.g. it tries to load model
> files from /usr/share/openrave.

Not even by setting the environment variable in %check?
http://openrave.org/docs/0.8.0/environment_variables/

> 
> > 
> > - Octave files should be installed in %{octpkglibdir}
> 
> I didn't know about that macro, fixed.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Octave

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]