Bug 253571
Summary: | Review Request: ocaml-fileutils - OCaml library for common file and filename operations | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Richard W.M. Jones <rjones> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jason Tibbitts <j> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, notting |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | j:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2008-02-22 18:43:08 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: |
Description
Richard W.M. Jones
2007-08-20 16:53:27 UTC
This fails to build for me, again missing camlp4. Did something change in rawhide which breaks these packages? I added the ocaml-camlp4-devel dependency and things build OK. rpmlint says: ocaml-fileutils.src:51: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep --with-builddir=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT-tmp Nasty. I see the comment indicating why you needed to do this, but I think it would be preferable for you to stay within the confines of the directory rpmbuild has set up for you ($RPM_BUILD_ROOT) as you have no guarantee that you can make another subdirectory of the parent directory. ocaml-fileutils.x86_64: E: no-binary ocaml-fileutils.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib I'm not really sure why rpmlint doesn't think a file full of stuff that certainly isn't text is somehow not binary. This can be ignored. Yes I agree. I've changed it so that it builds into a subdirectory ('tmp/') under the build directory. Here is an updated SRPM: Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml-fileutils-0.3.0-2.fc8.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-fileutils.spec This also adds the missing build dep on ocaml-camlp4-devel. Right URLs this time ... Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-fileutils-0.3.0-2.fc8.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-fileutils.spec I figured this wouldn't build because of the ocaml update, but it turns out that it builds fine. rpmlint has only the two weird complaints above; someone who understands what ocaml is doing really needs to get with the rpmlint maintainer and figure out the source of these complaints. Maybe it just doesn't like the fact that the only thing directly in _libdir is a directory. There's a test suite there; I tried running it but it seems to need the package to be installed before it works, and I don't know if it's possible to adjust the various search paths to pick up the files from the build directory. There are several grammatical errors in the description which should be easy to fix up. I had hoped to find a better upstream URL than one pointing to a list of files for download, but the wiki that upstream has doesn't seem to have any actual content. As far as I can tell, the License is LGPLv2+ plus some type of exception, so I guess this is "LGPLv2+ with exceptions". In addition, the COPYING file needs to be added to the package. You should probably add AUTHOR, CHANGELOG and TODO as well. I'm not sure about the stuff in the "website" directory. I can't think of any better way to handle the broken build system of this package, and you've adequately commented things, so that's OK. The README file is duplicated between packages, but we already decided I wouldn't block on this. * source files match upstream: 4b3929f758dac11bebdcbb84963ab44e2a5ebf06023665dd511d61b19e9654b8 ocaml-fileutils-0.3.0.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * Follows ocaml packaging guidelines * summary is OK. X description could use some grammar fixes. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field does not match the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. X license text should be included in the package. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint seems to have only bogus complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: ocaml-fileutils-0.3.0-2.fc9.x86_64.rpm ocaml(CygwinPath) = 55504b4f452dc9b72bcd7564a4c5a991 ocaml(CygwinPath_lexer) = 29edb3b5196b78e256fdcbafa566486b ocaml(CygwinPath_parser) = d7c4325a803605bd4737615702dcb060 ocaml(FilePath) = 80389f0c61bde05b590de9a464aa1831 ocaml(FilePath_type) = b20c6b0e73bf51cf8d25a2f256443dfc ocaml(FileUtil) = bd8589f4d97317061dd24d80db6eeacc ocaml(GenericPath_lexer) = d564536f943cee33d33f51880f85406d ocaml(GenericPath_parser) = 177c3bf79cd035b170e1d2efce3a36ff ocaml(MacOSPath) = 6eecbacbd1f32d7cbddb7f1e269358b7 ocaml(MacOSPath_lexer) = 473b7b6c310c611393a88e6922dfc897 ocaml(MacOSPath_parser) = 323e664f9989fd08de7097f80bc34995 ocaml(Str) = 56bb7ee61b2da83d42394686e3558fe4 ocaml(Unix) = 9a46a8db115947409e54686ada118599 ocaml(UnixLabels) = daaededf8793acd8b374c4e7c5d1fd16 ocaml(UnixPath) = 1538fbea534e0ac1e7f3a48c81330a6c ocaml(UnixPath_lexer) = 52138249abfd7fd19243bae955fec96a ocaml(UnixPath_parser) = 34b22f7becddd052a253243d516b2685 ocaml(Win32Path) = ef3947425c94dcbbbb4e80a851401ab0 ocaml(Win32Path_lexer) = 934bf4ebb71efb7a397e9fd8ce16a1b2 ocaml(Win32Path_parser) = b55b3f0165af59f53b11c55fa4f2495d ocaml-fileutils = 0.3.0-2.fc9 = ocaml(Array) = aa8e3cd5824f9bb40b93fcd38d0c95b5 ocaml(Buffer) = f6cef633ea14963b84b79c4095c63dc3 ocaml(Callback) = e5ca1fb5990fac2b7b17cbb1712cffe2 ocaml(Char) = e98bc9c9e918a84b3c1a5a122d42fac1 ocaml(Hashtbl) = 083f2c94b44ff4e0b3220aaea6a783b4 ocaml(Lexing) = b1793496643444d3762dd42bebe2cfe3 ocaml(List) = da1ce9168f0408ff26158af757456948 ocaml(Map) = dedde7683d54ae7db1eb97cc868dd047 ocaml(Obj) = 5cfae708052c692ea39d23ed930fd64d ocaml(Parsing) = 62cca107e4e88af303516459a87c3e9a ocaml(Pervasives) = 8ba3d1faa24d659525c9025f41fd0c57 ocaml(Printf) = 5dbbf45a03b54e6dbfcf39178d0d6341 ocaml(Set) = 7da14e671a035f12386ace3890018ef3 ocaml(Stream) = 21a833e12efd34ea0c87d8d9da959809 ocaml(String) = 2c162ab314b2f0a2cfd22d471b2e21ab ocaml(Sys) = 0da495f5a80f31899139359805318f28 ocaml(runtime) = 3.10.1 ocaml-fileutils-devel-0.3.0-2.fc9.x86_64.rpm ocaml-fileutils-devel = 0.3.0-2.fc9 = ocaml-fileutils = 0.3.0-2.fc9 * %check is not present; upstream test suite cannot easily be run. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. ? README file is duplicated. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. Here's an updated version: Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-fileutils.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-fileutils-0.3.0-3.fc9.src.rpm * Thu Feb 21 2008 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones> - 0.3.0-3 - Fixed grammar in the description section. - License is LGPLv2 with exceptions - Include license file with both RPMs. - Include other documentation only in the -devel RPM. BTW, my reading of the license is that it's LGPLv2 only (not "or later ..."). Am I mistaken? About rpmlint & warnings, see bug 433783. Well, the COPYING file says: The Library is distributed under the terms of the GNU Library General Public License version 2 (found in /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2 on debian systems). but all of the files in the libfileutils-ocaml directory say: (* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or *) (* modify it under the terms of the GNU Library General Public *) (* License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either *) (* version 2 of the License, or any later version ; with the OCaml *) (* static compilation exception. *) and the statements on the code always win unless, of course, there is an issue with combining them which would somehow limit the license. Of course, someone should introduce a clue to upstream about this, but in the meantime it really does look like LGPLv2+ to me. Honestly the issue of a plus or not isn't something worth holding this package up over; you can fix it when you check in. APPROVED New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ocaml-fileutils Short Description: OCaml library for common file and filename operations Owners: rjones Branches: F-8 InitialCC: rjones Cvsextras Commits: yes cvs done. I discussed license with upstream and he says he's going to resolve it in the tarball soon. In the meantime, I'm building it in Fedora 8 and Rawhide. What did upstream say the actual license is supposed to be? If a new upstream release isn't coming soon then it might be nice to include the email with the license clarification in the package as %doc. He didn't, it's still existing in a quantum state of LGPLv2 or LGPLv2+ :-) However Sylvain did put it on his buglist to clarify it ... http://le-gall.net/sylvain+violaine/bts/?do=details&id=55 |