Bug 2445872

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10205103
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2445872-ocaml-store/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10205103-ocaml-store/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

I'll review it.

Apart from the mixture of licensing terms for the source code I don't see anything weird so here is my formal

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 does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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 must match the actual license.
     We have files licensed under MIT, files with LGPLv2.1 (colibri2 parts),
     FaCile is lcensed with LGPL w/o a specific version, some files are 
     licensed unde LGPLv2 with linking exception. Maybe some of them didn't
     go into the final binary? Anyway please update licensing info.
[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 or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format (%autochangelog).
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package does not contain desktop file (not 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.
[-]: The package is not a rename of another package.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package does not  contain systemd file(s).
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[+/-]: Package is known to require an ExcludeArch tag but it's Ocaml-specific.
[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 934 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Ocaml:
[x]: This should never happen

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

Generic:
[-]: 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).
[?]: I did not test if the package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged (0.1).
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify.
[?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds 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: 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: ocaml-store-0.1-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          ocaml-store-devel-0.1-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          ocaml-store-0.1-1.fc45.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmphwnjdmrh')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

ocaml-store.src: E: spelling-error ('Snapshottable', 'Summary(en_US) Snapshottable -> Snapshot table, Snapshot-table, Nontarnishable')
ocaml-store.src: E: spelling-error ('snapshotting', '%description -l en_US snapshotting -> snaps hotting, snaps-hotting, snapshot ting')
ocaml-store.src: E: spelling-error ('snapshottable', '%description -l en_US snapshottable -> snapshot table, snapshot-table, nontarnishable')
ocaml-store.src: E: spelling-error ('Clément', '%description -l en_US Clément -> Clement')
ocaml-store.src: E: spelling-error ('Snapshottable', '%description -l en_US Snapshottable -> Snapshot table, Snapshot-table, Nontarnishable')
ocaml-store.src: E: spelling-error ('Proc', '%description -l en_US Proc -> Prof, Kroc, Crop')
ocaml-store.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Snapshottable', 'Summary(en_US) Snapshottable -> Snapshot table, Snapshot-table, Nontarnishable')
ocaml-store.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('snapshotting', '%description -l en_US snapshotting -> snaps hotting, snaps-hotting, snapshot ting')
ocaml-store.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('snapshottable', '%description -l en_US snapshottable -> snapshot table, snapshot-table, nontarnishable')
ocaml-store.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Clément', '%description -l en_US Clément -> Clement')
ocaml-store.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Snapshottable', '%description -l en_US Snapshottable -> Snapshot table, Snapshot-table, Nontarnishable')
ocaml-store.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Proc', '%description -l en_US Proc -> Prof, Kroc, Crop')
ocaml-store-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 12 errors, 1 warnings, 11 filtered, 12 badness; has taken 0.8 s 

^^^ false positives

Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: ocaml-store-debuginfo-0.1-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmp2kmwdl0e')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 3

ocaml-store.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs camlStdlib.invalid_arg_337_closure	(/usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs)
ocaml-store.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs caml_get_exception_raw_backtrace	(/usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs)
ocaml-store.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs caml_exn_Assert_failure	(/usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs)
ocaml-store.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs caml_call_gc	(/usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs)
ocaml-store.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs caml_c_call	(/usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs)
ocaml-store.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs camlStdlib__Printf.ksprintf_207	(/usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs)
ocaml-store.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs caml_reraise_exn	(/usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs)
ocaml-store.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs caml_modify	(/usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs)
ocaml-store.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs caml_call_realloc_stack	(/usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs)
ocaml-store.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs caml_raise_exn	(/usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs)
ocaml-store.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs caml_restore_raw_backtrace	(/usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs)

^^^ Ocaml-specific I guess.

ocaml-store.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Snapshottable', 'Summary(en_US) Snapshottable -> Snapshot table, Snapshot-table, Nontarnishable')
ocaml-store.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('snapshotting', '%description -l en_US snapshotting -> snaps hotting, snaps-hotting, snapshot ting')
ocaml-store.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('snapshottable', '%description -l en_US snapshottable -> snapshot table, snapshot-table, nontarnishable')
ocaml-store.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Clément', '%description -l en_US Clément -> Clement')
ocaml-store.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Snapshottable', '%description -l en_US Snapshottable -> Snapshot table, Snapshot-table, Nontarnishable')
ocaml-store.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Proc', '%description -l en_US Proc -> Prof, Kroc, Crop')
ocaml-store-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 12 warnings, 13 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.8 s 

^^^ False positives.

Source checksums
----------------
https://gitlab.com/basile.clement/store/-/archive/v0.1/store-v0.1.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 8891cc0b10774f3d048e2a213ea623306386d901034813d55feb082751ce1b4c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8891cc0b10774f3d048e2a213ea623306386d901034813d55feb082751ce1b4c


Requires
--------
ocaml-store (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ocaml(CamlinternalFormatBasics)
    ocaml(Stdlib)
    ocaml(Stdlib__Buffer)
    ocaml(Stdlib__Either)
    ocaml(Stdlib__Int32)
    ocaml(Stdlib__Obj)
    ocaml(Stdlib__Printexc)
    ocaml(Stdlib__Printf)
    ocaml(Stdlib__Seq)
    ocaml(Stdlib__Uchar)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

ocaml-store-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ocaml(CamlinternalFormatBasics)
    ocaml(Stdlib)
    ocaml(Stdlib__Buffer)
    ocaml(Stdlib__Either)
    ocaml(Stdlib__Int32)
    ocaml(Stdlib__Obj)
    ocaml(Stdlib__Printexc)
    ocaml(Stdlib__Printf)
    ocaml(Stdlib__Seq)
    ocaml(Stdlib__Uchar)
    ocaml-store(x86-64)
    ocamlx(Stdlib)
    ocamlx(Stdlib__Printexc)
    ocamlx(Stdlib__Printf)



Provides
--------
ocaml-store:
    ocaml(Store)
    ocaml-store
    ocaml-store(x86-64)

ocaml-store-devel:
    ocaml(Store)
    ocaml-store-devel
    ocaml-store-devel(x86-64)
    ocamlx(Store)



Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2445872
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Ocaml, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: Haskell, R, SugarActivity, PHP, Java, fonts, Perl, Python
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH


Please adjust licensing tag information and I'll continue.

Thank you for the review!  The code with non-MIT licenses lives in the bench and fuzzing directories.  We do not run any benchmarks, nor do we do any fuzzing, while building, so these files do not participate in the build at all.  I have added a comment to the spec file clarifying the situation, and added a SourceLicense tag so these other licenses can be enumerated.  Is that sufficient?

The URLs are the same as before.

(In reply to Jerry James from comment #4)
> Thank you for the review!  The code with non-MIT licenses lives in the bench
> and fuzzing directories.  We do not run any benchmarks, nor do we do any
> fuzzing, while building, so these files do not participate in the build at
> all.  I have added a comment to the spec file clarifying the situation, and
> added a SourceLicense tag so these other licenses can be enumerated.  Is
> that sufficient?

Yes, this is fine for me!
I don;t see any other issues so this pavckage is 

================
=== APPROVED ===
================