Bug 2036399

Summary: Review Request: ocaml-pyml - OCaml bindings for Python
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Jerry James <loganjerry>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Arthur Bols <arthur>
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: arthur, jun.miao, package-review
Target Milestone: ---Flags: arthur: fedora-review+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: ocaml-pyml-20211015-2.fc36 Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2022-01-11 03:14:51 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On: 2036398    
Bug Blocks:    

Description Jerry James 2021-12-31 21:02:15 UTC 
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-pyml/ocaml-pyml.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-pyml/ocaml-pyml-20211015-1.fc36.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: jjames
Description: py.ml provides OCaml bindings for Python 2 and Python 3.  This library subsumes the pycaml library, which is no longer actively maintained.

The Python library is linked at runtime and the same executable can be run in a Python 2 or a Python 3 environment.  py.ml does not require any Python library at compile time.  The only compile time dependency is Stdcompat to ensure compatibility with all OCaml compiler versions from 3.12.

Bindings are split in three modules:

- Py provides the initialization functions and some high-level bindings,
  with error handling and naming conventions closer to OCaml usages.

- Pycaml provides a signature close to the old Pycaml module, so as to
  ease migration.

- Pywrappers provides low-level bindings, which follow closely the
  conventions of the C bindings for Python.  Submodules
  Pywrappers.Python2 and Pywrappers.Python3 contain version-specific
  bindings.
Comment 1 Arthur Bols 2022-01-07 11:26:51 UTC 
Package approved!


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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 2-Clause License", "FSF All
     Permissive License", "[generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with
     License Retention) [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0
     or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]",
     "X11 License [generated file]", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License".
     202 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/arthur/fedora-review/2036398-ocaml-stdcompat/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 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

Ocaml:
[x]: This should never happen

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.

     Reviewers note: explained in comment

[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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 (manually)
------------------
ocaml-stdcompat-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/ocaml/stdcompat/stdcompat.cmxs-17-1.fc36.x86_64.debug
ocaml-stdcompat-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/ocaml/stublibs/dllstdcompat__stubs.so-17-1.fc36.x86_64.debug
ocaml-stdcompat-debuginfo.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/ocaml-stdcompat-17-1.fc36.x86_64
ocaml-stdcompat-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ocaml/stdcompat/libstdcompat__stubs.a
ocaml-stdcompat-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ocaml/stdcompat/stdcompat.a
ocaml-stdcompat.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/ocaml/stdcompat/stdcompat.cmxs
ocaml-stdcompat.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/ocaml/stublibs/dllstdcompat__stubs.so
ocaml-stdcompat-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/ocaml/stdcompat/stdcompat.cmxs-17-1.fc36.x86_64.debug
ocaml-stdcompat-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/ocaml/stublibs/dllstdcompat__stubs.so-17-1.fc36.x86_64.debug
ocaml-stdcompat-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ocaml-stdcompat-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ocaml-stdcompat-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ocaml-stdcompat-debuginfo.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/ocaml-stdcompat-17-1.fc36.x86_64
ocaml-stdcompat-devel.x86_64: E: lto-no-text-in-archive /usr/lib64/ocaml/stdcompat/libstdcompat__stubs.a
ocaml-stdcompat-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz
ocaml-stdcompat-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz
ocaml-stdcompat-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/28/9ef486a228c2b33b60158fed04fb7d6d73cdbf ../../../.build-id/28/9ef486a228c2b33b60158fed04fb7d6d73cdbf
ocaml-stdcompat-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/47/46b6dec92c9806ef7a27af8477352e690a5d03 ../../../.build-id/47/46b6dec92c9806ef7a27af8477352e690a5d03
==== 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 9 warnings, 9 badness; has taken 4.3 s =====
Comment 2 Arthur Bols 2022-01-07 11:31:17 UTC 
Posted on the wrong bug.... Give me a minute.
Comment 3 Arthur Bols 2022-01-07 12:15:47 UTC 
The correct review:


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated


Issues:
=======

- Incorrect license
  All files are BSD 2-clause except pycaml.mli, which is LGPLv2+.
  This should be indicated in the License field.

- Incorrect FSF address: pycaml.mli
  Please notify upstream

- rpmlint: files-duplicated-waste 189656
  Some duplicated files in debugsource (see rpmlint below)

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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.
[!]: 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 2-Clause License", "GNU Lesser
     General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal address
     (Temple Place)]", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License [generated
     file]". 31 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
     in /home/arthur/fedora-review/temp/2036399-ocaml-pyml/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 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

Ocaml:
[x]: This should never happen

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.

     Reviewers note: explained in comment

[-]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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
-------
ocaml-pyml-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/ocaml-pyml-20211015-1.fc36.x86_64
ocaml-pyml-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/ocaml/pyml/pyml.cmxs-20211015-1.fc36.x86_64.debug
ocaml-pyml-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/ocaml/stublibs/dllpyml_stubs.so-20211015-1.fc36.x86_64.debug
pymltop-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/pymltop-20211015-1.fc36.x86_64.debug
pymlutop-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/pymlutop-20211015-1.fc36.x86_64.debug
ocaml-pyml-debuginfo.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/ocaml-pyml-20211015-1.fc36.x86_64
ocaml-pyml-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ocaml/pyml/libpyml_stubs.a
ocaml-pyml-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ocaml/pyml/pyml.a
ocaml-pyml-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/ocaml/pyml/pyml.cmxs-20211015-1.fc36.x86_64.debug
ocaml-pyml-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/ocaml/stublibs/dllpyml_stubs.so-20211015-1.fc36.x86_64.debug
pymltop-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/pymltop-20211015-1.fc36.x86_64.debug
pymlutop-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/pymlutop-20211015-1.fc36.x86_64.debug
pymltop.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pymltop
pymlutop.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pymlutop
ocaml-pyml-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ocaml-pyml-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ocaml-pyml-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
pymltop.x86_64: W: no-documentation
pymltop-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation
pymlutop.x86_64: W: no-documentation
pymlutop-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ocaml-pyml-debuginfo.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/ocaml-pyml-20211015-1.fc36.x86_64
ocaml-pyml-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib64/ocaml/pyml/pycaml.mli
ocaml-pyml-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz
ocaml-pyml-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz
ocaml-pyml-debugsource.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 189656
ocaml-pyml-debugsource.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/src/debug/ocaml-pyml-20211015-1.fc36.x86_64/numpy_stubs.c /usr/src/debug/ocaml-pyml-20211015-1.fc36.x86_64/_build/default/numpy_stubs.c
ocaml-pyml-debugsource.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/src/debug/ocaml-pyml-20211015-1.fc36.x86_64/pyml.h /usr/src/debug/ocaml-pyml-20211015-1.fc36.x86_64/_build/default/pyml.h
ocaml-pyml-debugsource.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/src/debug/ocaml-pyml-20211015-1.fc36.x86_64/pyml_dlsyms.inc /usr/src/debug/ocaml-pyml-20211015-1.fc36.x86_64/_build/default/pyml_dlsyms.inc
ocaml-pyml-debugsource.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/src/debug/ocaml-pyml-20211015-1.fc36.x86_64/pyml_stubs.c /usr/src/debug/ocaml-pyml-20211015-1.fc36.x86_64/_build/default/pyml_stubs.c
ocaml-pyml-debugsource.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/src/debug/ocaml-pyml-20211015-1.fc36.x86_64/pyml_stubs.h /usr/src/debug/ocaml-pyml-20211015-1.fc36.x86_64/_build/default/pyml_stubs.h
ocaml-pyml-debugsource.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/src/debug/ocaml-pyml-20211015-1.fc36.x86_64/pyml_wrappers.inc /usr/src/debug/ocaml-pyml-20211015-1.fc36.x86_64/_build/default/pyml_wrappers.inc
ocaml-pyml-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/6f/ae093d05fae133c97a4a1aee0e4c0ce45c5f29 ../../../.build-id/6f/ae093d05fae133c97a4a1aee0e4c0ce45c5f29
ocaml-pyml-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/ca/4b4a5144f223fe20f1843854cc7e9eeabcd809 ../../../.build-id/ca/4b4a5144f223fe20f1843854cc7e9eeabcd809
pymltop-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/08/1c1ad6df42d489d321c60572545e03fb746e01 ../../../.build-id/08/1c1ad6df42d489d321c60572545e03fb746e01
pymlutop-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/a5/dc84f46469ea83e8eec3657a907fbc624db08e ../../../.build-id/a5/dc84f46469ea83e8eec3657a907fbc624db08e
pymltop.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/pymltop
pymltop-debuginfo.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/pymltop-20211015-1.fc36.x86_64.debug
pymlutop.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/pymlutop
pymlutop-debuginfo.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/pymlutop-20211015-1.fc36.x86_64.debug
==== 10 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 30 warnings, 10 badness; has taken 13.4 s ====
Comment 4 Jerry James 2022-01-07 23:08:52 UTC 
Good catch on the license.  I have fixed that.

The duplicate debugsource files actually turned up several other issues, all of which I believe I have fixed now.  The Makefile wasn't generating useful binaries.  The spec file is a lot uglier now, but the pymltop and pymlutop binaries actually work now.

New URLs:
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-pyml/ocaml-pyml.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-pyml/ocaml-pyml-20211015-2.fc36.src.rpm
Comment 5 Arthur Bols 2022-01-08 00:12:10 UTC 
Good to hear! Everything looks good now.

Package approved!
Comment 6 Jun.Miao 2022-01-08 11:57:14 UTC 
Hi, author
Building it in my local OS, some BuildRequires need to install. But If the name is not accurate only a description that will hard to install. such as:

jmiao@fedora35:ocaml$ rpmbuild -ba ocaml-pyml.spec 
setting SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH=1641513600
error: Failed build dependencies:
	ocaml-stdcompat-devel >= 17 is needed by ocaml-pyml-20211015-2.fc35.x86_64
	python3dist(ipython) is needed by ocaml-pyml-20211015-2.fc35.x86_64
	python3dist(numpy) is needed by ocaml-pyml-20211015-2.fc35.x86_64

jmiao@fedora35:ocaml$ sudo yum install ocaml-stdcompat-dievel
Last metadata expiration check: 0:24:46 ago on Sat 08 Jan 2022 06:24:04 AM EST.
No match for argument: ocaml-stdcompat-dievel
Error: Unable to find a match: ocaml-stdcompat-dievel

Why we choose the full and correct name of dependence ?

Thanks
Jun
Comment 7 Arthur Bols 2022-01-08 12:24:14 UTC 
Hi Jun,

> Building it in my local OS, some BuildRequires need to install. But If the name is not accurate only a description that will hard to install. such as:

The name is accurate, you made an error. It's ocaml-stdcompat-devel not ocaml-stdcompat-dievel. Some dependencies for ocaml-pyml are not yet in f35, only in rawhide, so you wouldn't be able to install them right now.

> Why we choose the full and correct name of dependence ?

I don't understand this.

Please have patience. Jerry is working hard to get this into Fedora.
Comment 8 Jun.Miao 2022-01-08 13:05:48 UTC 
> The name is accurate, you made an error. It's ocaml-stdcompat-devel not ocaml-stdcompat-dievel
Oh, sorry i also find the spelling mistakes after later. In fact I run "ocaml-stdcompat-devel", but Spelling mistakes to there. The reason of the dependence is "Some dependencies for ocaml-pyml are not yet in f35. "

I try to build again by koji and it is ok:
koji build --scratch rawhide  ocaml-pyml-20211015-2.fc36.src.rpm
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=80988049

Thanks for your explanation.

> Why we choose the full and correct name of dependence ?
Why don`t we choose the full or correct name of dependence ?
I believe that its name is not accurate as before.

Thanks
Jun
Comment 9 Jerry James 2022-01-08 16:11:53 UTC 
Thank you again, Arthur.  You've been a great help.

Jun, I do not intend to build this package for F35.  Do you need it in F35 for some reason?

> Why don`t we choose the full or correct name of dependence ?
> I believe that its name is not accurate as before.

Like Arthur, I do not understand what you mean by this.  What name do you think is wrong?  What do you think the name should be?
Comment 10 Jun.Miao 2022-01-09 00:57:59 UTC 
>> Why don`t we choose the full or correct name of dependence ?
>> I believe that its name is not accurate as before.

> Like Arthur, I do not understand what you mean by this.  What name do you think is wrong?  What do you 
> think the name should be?

Hmm, It is my mistake, ignore the only version "rawhide". When researching the dependence name, cannot get it. At a result, mistakenly believe that the name is right. I should more carefully ask this confusion next time.

Thanks
Jun
Comment 11 Gwyn Ciesla 2022-01-10 16:49:10 UTC 
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ocaml-pyml
Comment 12 Jerry James 2022-01-11 03:14:51 UTC 
This package has been built in Rawhide.