[Bug 2168594] New: Review Request: v-hacd - Decomposes a 3D surface into a set of “near” convex parts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168594
Bug ID: 2168594 Summary: Review Request: v-hacd - Decomposes a 3D surface into a set of “near” convex parts Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: code@musicinmybrain.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/v-hacd.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/v-hacd-4.1.0-1.fc37.src.rpm
Description:
The V-HACD library decomposes a 3D surface into a set of “near” convex parts.
Why do we need approximate convex decomposition?
Collision detection is essential for realistic physical interactions in video games and computer animation. In order to ensure real-time interactivity with the player/user, video game and 3D modeling software developers usually approximate the 3D models composing the scene (e.g. animated characters, static objects…) by a set of simple convex shapes such as ellipsoids, capsules or convex-hulls. In practice, these simple shapes provide poor approximations for concave surfaces and generate false collision detection.
Convex-hull vs. ACD
A second approach consists in computing an exact convex decomposition of a surface S, which consists in partitioning it into a minimal set of convex sub-surfaces. Exact convex decomposition algorithms are NP-hard and non-practical since they produce a high number of clusters. To overcome these limitations, the exact convexity constraint is relaxed and an approximate convex decomposition of S is instead computed. Here, the goal is to determine a partition of the mesh triangles with a minimal number of clusters, while ensuring that each cluster has a concavity lower than a user defined threshold.
Fedora Account System Username: music
Koji scratch builds:
F39: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=97306550 F38: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=97306551 F37: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=97306556 F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=97306558
This is an optional dependency for python-trimesh.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168594
Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |vascom2@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- Spec file not available.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168594
--- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- (In reply to Vasiliy Glazov from comment #1)
Spec file not available.
Thank you. Fixed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168594
Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |vascom2@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168594
Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- Approved.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/vascom/2168594-v-hacd/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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 [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [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. [x]: 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. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 757760 bytes in 4 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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). [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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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 %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in v-hacd- devel , v-hacd-tools [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: v-hacd-devel-4.1.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm v-hacd-tools-4.1.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm v-hacd-debugsource-4.1.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm v-hacd-4.1.0-1.fc39.src.rpm ====================================================================== rpmlint session starts ===================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpt6vne3jl')] checks: 31, packages: 4
v-hacd.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: v-hacd-4.1.0-filtered.tar.xz ======================================= 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s ======================================
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: v-hacd-tools-debuginfo-4.1.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm ====================================================================== rpmlint session starts ===================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpdlhdxkly')] checks: 31, packages: 1
======================================= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ======================================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 4
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s
Requires -------- v-hacd-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
v-hacd-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
v-hacd-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- v-hacd-devel: v-hacd-devel v-hacd-static
v-hacd-tools: v-hacd-tools v-hacd-tools(x86-64)
v-hacd-debugsource: v-hacd-debugsource v-hacd-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2168594 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Perl, Python, Ocaml, Haskell, Java, SugarActivity, fonts, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168594
--- Comment #4 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Thank you for the review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168594
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/v-hacd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168594
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-9609293b7d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-9609293b7d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168594
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2023-02-20 14:10:05
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-9609293b7d has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168594
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-424f43dda5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-424f43dda5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168594
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-424f43dda5 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168594
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-fdc14e95cd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-fdc14e95cd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168594
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-57188d9d83 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-57188d9d83
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168594
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-d3c4bd1cde has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-d3c4bd1cde
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168594
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-be7403e44f has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-be7403e44f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168594
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-fdc14e95cd has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-fdc14e95cd *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-fdc14e95cd
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168594
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-d3c4bd1cde has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-d3c4bd1cde
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168594
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-57188d9d83 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-57188d9d83 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-57188d9d83
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168594
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-be7403e44f has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-be7403e44f
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168594
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-be7403e44f has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168594
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-fdc14e95cd has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168594
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-d3c4bd1cde has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168594
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-57188d9d83 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168594
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-0789386541 (v-hacd-4.1.0-11.el10_0) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.0. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-0789386541
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168594
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-0789386541 (v-hacd-4.1.0-11.el10_0) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com