Bug 528461 (ocaml-fieldslib)
| Summary: | Review Request: ocaml-fieldslib - OCaml library for folding over record fields | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Richard W.M. Jones <rjones> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jason Tibbitts <j> |
| Status: | CLOSED DEFERRED | 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+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2012-05-09 19:30:59 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: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 445074 | ||
|
Description
Richard W.M. Jones
2009-10-12 10:39:38 UTC
rpmlint says: ocaml-fieldslib.x86_64: E: no-binary - This is OK for OCaml packages, at least until we start to build the main package as noarch and the subpackage as arch-specific. Oops, missing BR on camlp4. Updated package: Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-fieldslib.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-fieldslib-0.1.0-2.fc11.src.rpm Koji scratch build of the updated package: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1741734 Builds fine and rpmlint has only the expected no-binary complaint.
As expected for a review ticket this old, there are some lines in the spec which are unneeded on modern Fedora (BuildRoot:, cleaning of buildroot in %install, and for F13+ the entire %clean section). I suggest removing them unless you're targeting EPEL.
There's a test.ml in the sample directory; it doesn't seem to do much, but it does get built as part of the regular build which I guess implies that at least the syntax extension builds. I don't suppose it would do much good to run it somewhere, though.
The LICENSE file is unnecessarily duplicated, but meh.
This is a syntax extension, so the .cmo file should be OK in the main package.
Looks good enough to me.
* source files match upstream. sha256sum:
bd999bebadd344c83928ef2cddb65112587d808143a3f38736c994bf0b12ade6
fieldslib-0.1.0.tgz
* 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.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint has only acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
ocaml-fieldslib-0.1.0-2.fc15.x86_64.rpm
ocaml(Fieldslib) = 6166d2ad0c577e8e7dd95f48377278fc
ocaml(Pa_fields_conv) = bb52643b3d15a0f4be959a2e45d53683
ocaml-fieldslib = 0.1.0-2.fc15
ocaml-fieldslib(x86-64) = 0.1.0-2.fc15
=
ocaml(Arg) = b6513be035dc9c8a458c189cd8841700
ocaml(Array) = 9c9fa5f11e2d6992c427dde4d1168489
ocaml(Buffer) = 0ce5de86183a833ed112488a1e6d281d
ocaml(Camlp4) = bb930f7c2bed5d057c794fe07dc8596a
ocaml(Camlp4_config) = 80b5d58834366711574a5ec4dfb123fd
ocaml(Camlp4_import) = 4d17b58763ba1f0aac92fd5dbb558b59
ocaml(Char) = 3da72249626c7db769beafc97036cb4f
ocaml(Filename) = 9d7d89d76fb7c750cebd9ea5578bba67
ocaml(Format) = 294246d2bcc3b8adc89bd48bff122c7e
ocaml(Hashtbl) = ee2a3220e38a4350c5bc131ce9f3f6ce
ocaml(Int32) = b2545c419b6b6a173cac4c0a3e7e0277
ocaml(Int64) = d501d6e89fdce41c79f274fb464995d5
ocaml(Lexing) = 4d17267334f1a6c75730dc3fae21fb9b
ocaml(List) = a0e2e49d266ff302f8667651a43f71ba
ocaml(ListLabels) = 2c45a4e52fd403ad1dcf75f09e4cac27
ocaml(Nativeint) = 7233ce5207a538fea4f0c61ed411ea2c
ocaml(Obj) = 57b3fe2fcfe45ee25709b8ae556264d1
ocaml(Parsing) = 29c3f123280f8e6e639cfb025b3c9a3f
ocaml(Pa_type_conv) = 917c39ac24d30438f1e78e6e58840e45
ocaml(Pervasives) = 88cb1505c8bdf9a4dcd2cdf3452732b4
ocaml(Printf) = 807ecd3a1538992580464c03462c9964
ocaml(Queue) = 56b5e04dcda600ae0cdf49a37f17fcd9
ocaml(Set) = c4be5d24d30c129dd60d2739e54db7dd
ocaml(Stream) = 91a43ea7fb16bf36f3f10c0dc7d08a0e
ocaml(String) = ecc403546c1c50056801131811c39017
ocaml(Sys) = 21bf525b2b3f3a46a54b96163adfe387
ocaml(runtime) = 3.11.2
ocaml-fieldslib-devel-0.1.0-2.fc15.x86_64.rpm
ocaml-fieldslib-devel = 0.1.0-2.fc15
ocaml-fieldslib-devel(x86-64) = 0.1.0-2.fc15
=
ocaml-fieldslib = 0.1.0-2.fc15
* 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.
APPROVED
Did you want to move forward with this? I know it sat in the queue for a while, and if you no longer wish to continue with the package then feel free to just close this ticket. Yeah sorry I meant to, but then obviously I didn't. Give me a little longer. This package is important for a Fedora 15 proposed feature ... No problem; just making sure it didn't fall through the cracks (again). It's been another month (and then some); any progress? This is going to happen really really soon. I am going to update OCaml to 3.12 for: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/OCaml3.12 and add a bunch more packages. So I guess it's been something near a year and a half since the last comment here, and this is still open in my bug list which I'm trying to trim. Can I just close this out, or is there any chance of it moving forward? OK let's close this, since obviously I didn't get around to packaging it ... |