http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18 Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)hhs.nl&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |j.w.r.degoede(a)hhs.nl --- Comment #1 from Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)hhs.nl&gt; 2008-01-03 09:54:12 --- Good work, I'm unfortunately to busy t review this, I just wanted to say keep up the good work! -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18 Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|2 |3 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2008-01-12 14:13:51 --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [!] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [!] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: f8/i386 [x] Rpmlint output: Output is clean [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) [!] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: GPLv2 [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] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [!] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [!] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [-] Package must own all directories that it creates. [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [x] Package consistently uses macros. [!] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: f8/i386 [!] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [-] File based requires are sane. === Issues === 1. Package is not named according to guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-d97a3f40b6d... Example (pre-release svn checkout): autopano-sift-C-2-4.1.20080102svn 2. It seems to me that license is "GPLv2" and not "GPLv2 or later" README says: This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; version 2 of the License. Header in most C files: * This program is free software released under the GNU General Public * License, which is included in this software package (doc/LICENSE). 3. Source 0 is not available (http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/hugin/autopano-sift-C-2.4.tar.gz) Please see packaging guidelines on how to package svn checkouts: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#head-615f6271efb394ab34... 4. Duplicate BuildRequires: zlib-devel (by libpng-devel), libpng-devel (by libpano13-devel), libjpeg-devel (by libpano13-devel), libtiff-devel (by libpano13-devel) 5. Do not package doc/autopano.txt doc/generatekeys.txt since these are just text files converted from their man pages. 6. Is this package stable? I ask since I read the following in the REAME.1ST file: "These files have suddenly appeared on the hugin patches page. It has been uploaded by an anonymous person. Thank you! Unfortunately there still seems to be a subtle bug in the port. I have been unable to locate this bug. If you do please let me know so that I can add the patches and distribute the sourcecode." 7. I tried to follow this note (which should be in a README.fedora file): "To use with hugin, set the 'Autopano-SIFT:' preference to autopano-c-complete.sh" but I cannot make it work with hugin. I get the following error when I try to make control points: command:autopano-c-complete.sh --output /tmp/ap_res0pPXi3 --imagelist /tmp/ap_imgnamestvdTle fallito, codice errore:1 === Final Notes === 1. SIFT algorithm is patented (but it is fine since we are in RPM Fusion and not in Fedora) NEEDSWORK -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.