Bug 2221319

licensecheck isn't working (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231896)
but I was able to complete the review.

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

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



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

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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.

Not really applicable for OCaml packages, but this one has
a sensible %build section.

[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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package

It's just a binary.

[-]: 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.

There's an argument that this one should be called
'ocaml-not-ocamlfind', but on the other hand it is a program (called
'not-ocamlfind') and we have plenty of other instances where packages
that happen to be written in OCaml are named after the name of the
program and don't use the ocaml-* prefix, so I think this is fine.

[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.

Builds on either bytecode or native platforms.

[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 4288 bytes in 2 files.
[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).

It's just a binary, so requires usual stuff like libc, and also
ocaml-findlib since it uses that program.

[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.

Yes, 0.09 is latest upstream release (from last year).  There are
further upstream commits.

[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[?]: %check is present and all tests pass.

Not present upstream.  I would favour adding a simple test that the
binary runs.

[-]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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
-------
Checking: not-ocamlfind-0.10-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          not-ocamlfind-debuginfo-0.10-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          not-ocamlfind-debugsource-0.10-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          not-ocamlfind-0.10-1.fc39.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmp_070qfwz')]
checks: 31, packages: 4

not-ocamlfind.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary not-ocamlfind

RWMJ: No manual page upstream either.

not-ocamlfind.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/not-ocamlfind
not-ocamlfind.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/ocaml/not-ocamlfind/papr_official.exe

RWMJ: This is a side-effect of how OCaml works.  The program itself
      isn't using gethostbyname.

 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.1 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: not-ocamlfind-debuginfo-0.10-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmp2q85pij9')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 3

not-ocamlfind.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary not-ocamlfind
not-ocamlfind.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/not-ocamlfind
not-ocamlfind.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/ocaml/not-ocamlfind/papr_official.exe
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/chetmurthy/not-ocamlfind/archive/0.10/not-ocamlfind-0.10.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ccea4d823c57ecb3987e9f7690837cdeccf52eee05d4b118d3927b668c0d2975
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ccea4d823c57ecb3987e9f7690837cdeccf52eee05d4b118d3927b668c0d2975


Requires
--------
not-ocamlfind (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    ocaml-findlib(x86-64)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

not-ocamlfind-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

not-ocamlfind-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
not-ocamlfind:
    not-ocamlfind
    not-ocamlfind(x86-64)

not-ocamlfind-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    not-ocamlfind-debuginfo
    not-ocamlfind-debuginfo(x86-64)

not-ocamlfind-debugsource:
    not-ocamlfind-debugsource
    not-ocamlfind-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2221319
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Perl, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, R, Python, Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

*** Package APPROVED for Fedora ***

Thank you for the review!  I have added a %check script:

%check
# Upstream provides no tests, so we just check that simple usage gives us a
# zero exit code
./not-ocamlfind package-graph -predicates true -package findlib

That currently produces this output:

digraph G {
  "findlib.internal: 322KiB";
  "findlib";
  
  
  "findlib" -> "findlib.internal: 322KiB";
  
  }

But I don't want to check that the output matches that exactly, as it may change in ways that don't matter for the test due to findlib updates.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/not-ocamlfind

The not-ocamlfind packages has been built for F39 and Rawhide.