Bug 459902
Summary: | Review Request: ocaml-bisect - OCaml code coverage tool | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Richard W.M. Jones <rjones> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Rakesh Pandit <rpandit> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, notting |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | rpandit:
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: | 2008-08-25 12:38:59 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
2008-08-24 07:58:26 UTC
acceptable Fedora format for naming is %{name}-%{version}-%{release} so I suppose ocaml-bisect-1.0-0.1.alpha%{?dist} would be okay ? Build successfully: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=782339 Package looks sane to me, except this issue. May you update and it and in the meantime I run my checklist ? Wow, that was quick! I'm not sure I understood the naming issue entirely correctly. Is the following name better? Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-bisect.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-bisect-1.0-1.alpha.fc10.src.rpm https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#NonNumericRelease for release field Release: 0.1.%{subversion}%{?dist} will be okay. 1.e ocaml-bisect-1.0-0.1.alpha.fc10.src.rpm for each bump you can increment <x> in ocaml-bisect-1.0-0.<x>.alpha.fc10.src.rpm OK, I think I've got it now. Try this one: Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-bisect.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-bisect-1.0-0.1.alpha.fc10.src.rpm APPROVED rpmlint is clean except the warning message I have i686 m/c [rpmbuild@rocky i386]$ rp ocaml-bisect-1.0_alpha-1.fc9.i386.rpm ocaml-bisect.i386: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/bisect-report 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings warning is being taken care: #450551 You may like to update this bug now!! [rpmbuild@rocky i386]$ rp ocaml-bisect-devel-1.0_alpha-1.fc9.i386.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [rpmbuild@rocky SRPMS]$ rp ocaml-bisect-1.0_alpha-1.fc9.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Required: [x] Name (in accordance with ocaml guidelines) [x] License -- okay src files have (or later) so GPLv3+ is correct [x] Spec file is in American Eng and legible [x] Build successfully http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=782339 [x] BuildRequires [x] Duplicate files - nil [NA] locale [x] permissions -- okay [x] source link correct [x] packaging guidlines [x] Buildroot correct [x] owns every directory it creates [x] file encoding - checked [x] package has no dependency on files in %doc [x] gui [x] No dependencies outside FHS guidelines [x] md5sum [rpmbuild@rocky ocaml]$ md5sum bisect-1.0-alpha.tar.gz 2285c0af8d0e7503fbd0283a48cba944 bisect-1.0-alpha.tar.gz [rpmbuild@rocky ocaml]$ md5sum ocaml-bisect-1.0_alpha-1.fc10/bisect-1.0-alpha.tar.gz 2285c0af8d0e7503fbd0283a48cba944 ocaml-bisect-1.0_alpha-1.fc10/bisect-1.0-alpha.tar.gz [x] unnecessary files excluded [x] native compiler test [x] devel package contains right files [x] ocaml guidelines Optional suggestions: -Nil- Key NA = N/A, x = Check, ! = Problem, ? = Not evaluated New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ocaml-bisect Short Description: OCaml code coverage tool Owners: rjones Branches: F-9 InitialCC: rjones cvs done. F-9: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=784441 F-10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=784440 Thanks to everyone. |