[Bug 2054] Review request: OCE - OpenCASCADE Community Edition

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2054

Dan Horák <dan at danny.cz> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|                            |4

--- Comment #4 from Dan Horák <dan at danny.cz> 2011-12-18 10:48:27 CET ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> > - OCE overrides Fedora's -O2 to -O3, IMHO we should prefer the -O2, seems to be
> > connected to the "build type" Release vs. RelWithDebInfo (I'd use this) vs. ...
> 
> Ok, here's an area I'm totally lost. I know the "O" setting has to do with
> optimization, but is O3 bad? 

Fedora standardizes on -O2 because it should be good enough and it's the most
tested optimization plan. The problem is that gcc takes the latest -Ox value on
the command line and it depends if Fedora flags override project's ones or vice
versa. Seems appending -DOCE_BUILD_TYPE=RelWithDebInfo to cmake will set the
OCE compiler flags to "-O2 -g -DNDEBUG".


> > OCE-foundation.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
> > /usr/share/oce-0.7.0/src/DrawResources/tdoc 0644L /bin/sh
> > OCE-foundation.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
> > /usr/share/oce-0.7.0/src/DrawResources/test2xl 0644L /bin/sh
> > OCE-foundation.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
> > /usr/share/oce-0.7.0/src/DrawResources/idoc 0644L /bin/sh
> > OCE-foundation.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
> > /usr/share/oce-0.7.0/src/DrawResources/vmdltest 0644L /bin/sh
> > OCE-foundation.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
> > /usr/share/oce-0.7.0/src/DrawResources/demo 0644L /bin/csh
> > OCE-foundation.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
> > /usr/share/oce-0.7.0/src/DrawResources/mdltest 0644L /bin/sh
> > OCE-foundation.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
> > /usr/share/oce-0.7.0/src/DrawResources/mkdoc 0644L /bin/csh
> >     => do the files need to be installed at all?
> 
> No clue. I don't need them for FreeCAD but it installs them, presumably as
> examples so they shouldn't be executable. I think this is ignoreable, but
> what's your opinion?

keep them as they are unless someone will come with better idea :-)

> > OCE-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on OCE/OCE-libs/libOCE
> >     => it depends on all the library subpackages
> 
> I effectively got this from your package (and you got it from the Debian
> structure?) from OCC. I think it's complaining because there's no OCE base
> package, instead it's OCE-foundation. I think we can ignore this.

yes, I should have written it's OK 

> > OCE-visualization.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> > OCE-ocaf.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> > OCE-modeling.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> >     => developer documentation is removed in OCE
> 
> It is, but I think it can be built, either way it would go into OCE-devel, not
> the individual packages, no?

yes, it's OK 

> > many unused-direct-shlib-dependency warnings on installed packages => maybe
> > using -Wl,--as-needed could solve it
> 
> I'm not a programmer so I'll try it and see what happens :)

it seems to work, which is good :-)

The package is APPROVED.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.