Bug 433783

Summary:	rpmlint and warnings/errors in OCaml RPMs
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Richard W.M. Jones <rjones>
Component:	rpmlint	Assignee:	Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	low	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	9	CC:	manuel.wolfshant, tmz
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	Reopened
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	0.83-1.fc9	Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2008-06-26 08:29:57 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 2008-02-21 13:54:25 UTC

By and large, current versions of rpmlint have excellent support for
OCaml RPMs - thanks.  Below are some warnings and errors which rpmlint
still emits which either don't seem to represent real errors, or else
are errors which cannot reasonably be fixed.

only-non-binary-in-usr-lib (example: cduce RPM, bug 241487)

  In the cduce RPM:

  /usr/lib/ocaml/cduce/META            # text file
  /usr/lib/ocaml/cduce/cduce_lib.cma   # arch-indep bytecode
  /usr/lib/ocaml/cduce/cduce_lib.cmi   # precompiled header file

  In theory the above files could be shared between arches
  (but see below).

  In the cduce-devel RPM:

  /usr/lib/ocaml/cduce/cduce_lib.a     # native code library (code)
  /usr/lib/ocaml/cduce/cduce_lib.cmxa  # native code library (metadata)

  The OCaml toolchain (particularly ocamlfind) doesn't support splitting
  these files across several directories.  In addition if we did this
  we'd be incompatible with Debian and every other OCaml distributor out
  there.  So I don't think this idea is going to fly.

  If these where combined into a single RPM then rpmlint wouldn't
  emit the warning.

  But there is a sound OCaml policy reason for the cduce / cduce-devel
  split.  Basically if you're just using the library but not needing
  to compile native code against the library, you can just install
  the 'cduce' package.  If you want to compile your own code
  against the library, you normally need both RPMs.

ocaml-naming-policy-not-applied (example: cduce RPM, bug 241487)

  'cduce' is a standalone language which happens to be written in
  OCaml and can be included in OCaml.  It also includes OCaml
  libraries.  I would say it should be exempted from this rule.

  One possibility would be to further split the cduce package, eg:

    ocaml-cduce                       # bytecode/toplevel library
    ocaml-cduce-devel                 # native code library
    cduce                             # standalone binary

  Not knowing how rpmlint implements the policy check, I'm not sure
  if this is the best thing to do.

  This error also occurs in the base ocaml package, where it
  obviously isn't an error.

no-binary (example: ocaml-extlib RPM)

  rpmlint is literally correct here.  ocaml-extlib could be noarch
  and ocaml-extlib-devel should be whatever arch, eg. i386.

  However there is no way I can tell to express this in an RPM
  spec file.  If I set the whole spec file to noarch, then the
  subpackage becomes noarch too.

configure-without-libdir-spec (example: cduce SRPM, bug 241487)

  We get this error whenever './configure' isn't one which is
  generated by autoconf, and thus wouldn't understand the --libdir
  parameter.  (Actually this isn't an OCaml-specific problem, but
  I imagine it would apply to lots of packages).

Comment 1 Ville Skyttä 2008-02-23 14:18:30 UTC

First, thanks for a detailed bug report, but in the future, please report each
issue in a separate bug so they're easier to track.

> only-non-binary-in-usr-lib (example: cduce RPM, bug 241487)

Should be fixed in upstream svn:
http://rpmlint.zarb.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/changeset/1402

Not tested with a binary cduce package because I could not find one and building
it requires some packages that aren't (yet) in Rawhide at the moment.

> ocaml-naming-policy-not-applied (example: cduce RPM, bug 241487)

I think a valid way to approach this warning would be to just ignore it.  We can
of course add special cases in rpmlint's shipped config, but I'd rather not go
there.  If you disagree, feel free to submit a config patch :)

>   This error also occurs in the base ocaml package, where it
>   obviously isn't an error.

Fixed upstream:
http://rpmlint.zarb.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/changeset/1399

> no-binary (example: ocaml-extlib RPM)

Not sure what to do about this.  Ideas?

> configure-without-libdir-spec (example: cduce SRPM, bug 241487)

Downgraded into a warning and info message improved upstream:
http://rpmlint.zarb.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/changeset/1403

Comment 2 Richard W.M. Jones 2008-02-23 14:48:35 UTC

>> only-non-binary-in-usr-lib (example: cduce RPM, bug 241487)
>
> Should be fixed in upstream svn:
> http://rpmlint.zarb.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/changeset/1402
>
> Not tested with a binary cduce package because I could not find one and building
> it requires some packages that aren't (yet) in Rawhide at the moment.

If you have Rawhide, then the following package
also gives this error:
ocaml-xml-light-2.2.cvs20070817-6.fc9.<arch>.rpm

$ rpmlint ocaml-xml-light-2.2.cvs20070817-6.fc9.i386.rpm 
ocaml-xml-light.i386: E: no-binary
ocaml-xml-light.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib

The change in cset 1402 looks fine to me though.

>> no-binary (example: ocaml-extlib RPM)
>
> Not sure what to do about this.  Ideas?

I don't know.  I was just pointing it out really.

Thanks for fixing these, I'll close this bug now.

Comment 3 Ville Skyttä 2008-02-23 20:18:18 UTC

(In reply to comment #2)
> 
> $ rpmlint ocaml-xml-light-2.2.cvs20070817-6.fc9.i386.rpm 
> ocaml-xml-light.i386: E: no-binary
> ocaml-xml-light.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib

Yep, I tested with some other ocaml packages and it seemed to work fine. 
Retested now with ocaml-xml-light and the upstream svn version now only emits
the no-binary error as expected.

> Thanks for fixing these, I'll close this bug now.

Thanks, but I'd rather keep it open until a fixed package is available in Fedora
so I remember to add bug number pointers to the package changelog, and in case
others run into these same issues they can find this bug more easily.

Comment 4 Bug Zapper 2008-05-14 05:19:19 UTC

Changing version to '9' as part of upcoming Fedora 9 GA.
More information and reason for this action is here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2008-06-09 18:32:58 UTC

rpmlint-0.83-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2008-06-09 18:35:04 UTC

rpmlint-0.83-1.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2008-06-11 04:34:23 UTC

rpmlint-0.83-1.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update rpmlint'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F8/FEDORA-2008-5185

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2008-06-26 08:29:43 UTC

rpmlint-0.83-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2008-06-26 08:30:43 UTC

rpmlint-0.83-1.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.