Bug 460732
Summary: | Review Request: ocaml-reins - Library of OCaml persistent data structures | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Richard W.M. Jones <rjones> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jason Tibbitts <j> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, j, notting |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | j:
fedora-review+
j: 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: | 2008-09-05 19:49:47 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
2008-08-30 14:50:14 UTC
Short-circuiting is simply calling rpmbuild with --short-circuit. It lets you skip, say, directly to %build or %install without running %prep or %prep/%build, respectively, letting you tweak the package and test without having to sit through those potentially long steps. I think the point of the rpmlint warning is to remind you not to write to the buildroot during %prep and %build. This package doesn't even read from it. A problem might arise if the buildroot isn't constant between rpmbuild calls, such as when mktemp is called as part of buildroot determination, but that's not the case here. I can't think of a case with a constant buildroot which is neither being read nor written to which would cause a problem with short curcuiting. BTW, the package stashes the destdir location in config.omake.omc, which is binary for some reason. I hope this kind of thing doesn't catch on. In any case, I don't think this is a significant issue, since I can't come up with any way that it hurts anything and outside of patching some binary file there seems to be no way around it. Would you classify the version "0.1a" as an update from "0.1", or something which will later be released as "0.1"? Because you've versioned things as the latter, but it seems to me that it should be the former. I'd suggest Version: 0.1a Release: 1 unless you somehow don't trust upstream to keep a reasonable ordering. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages for more information. I've asked upstream for a comment on versioning and future releases. If you check the download area you'll see that 0.1 was released before 0.1a, strongly implying 0.1a is an update to 0.1. Unless you really want to wait for upstream, I suggest just using the usual versioning scheme. OK this is the package with normal versioning restored: Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-reins.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-reins-0.1a-2.fc10.src.rpm * source files match upstream: 3f3fa0ac27d35abc4000184733f2a8deabd2f87310078fc343951ecb37d15a76 ocaml-reins-0.1a.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints (as discussed above). * final provides and requires are sane (as above). * %check is not present, but a test suite runs automatically at build time: Ran: 642 tests in: 2.54 seconds. OK *** All tests passed *** * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * .cma, .cmi, .so, .so.owner, META files in the main package. * .a, .cmxa, .cmx and .mli files are in the -devel subpackage. * .cmo, .o and .ml files not included APPROVED New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ocaml-reins Short Description: Library of OCaml persistent data structures Owners: rjones Branches: F-9 InitialCC: rjones cvs done. Kevin, I know that you never sleep which must be the only explanation for your extraordinary output, but I wonder if the F-9 branch is missing from CVS? (Or I might have just made a mistake). New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ocaml-reins Short Description: Library of OCaml persistent data structures Owners: rjones Branches: F-9 InitialCC: rjones Should be fixed now. Thank you. |