Spec URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-jsonm.spec SRPM URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-jsonm-0.9.1-2.fc21.src.rpm Description: Jsonm is a non-blocking streaming codec to decode and encode the JSON data format. It can process JSON text without blocking on IO and without a complete in-memory representation of the data. The alternative "uncut" codec also processes whitespace and (non-standard) JSON with JavaScript comments. Jsonm is made of a single module and depends on [Uutf][1]. It is distributed under the BSD license. [1]: http://erratique.ch/software/uutf Fedora Account System Username: jonludlam
This package depends upon ocaml-uutf, for which I have a review request pending here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183195
Defining 'native_compiler' symbol but not using it. [Uutf] .. [] doesn't mean anything to rpm - this is not ocamldoc! It's probably better just to remove the square brackets. The rest looks good to me.
Fixed thanks. Spec URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-jsonm.spec SRPM URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-jsonm-0.9.1-3.fc21.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines - Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. This package has the same mystery "BSD3" license. It needs to be clarified with upstream as to precisely what wording is in the license. [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. The build system is sufficiently wierd that it's probably impossible to use %{configure}, %{_smp_mflags} etc. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. [-]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. Ocaml: [x]: This should never happen ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. See comment above. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ocaml- jsonm-devel May need to use %{?_isa}. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ocaml-jsonm-0.9.1-3.fc21.x86_64.rpm ocaml-jsonm-devel-0.9.1-3.fc21.x86_64.rpm ocaml-jsonm-0.9.1-3.fc21.src.rpm ocaml-jsonm.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> codex, code, codes ocaml-jsonm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes ocaml-jsonm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whitespace -> white space, white-space, whites pace ocaml-jsonm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jsontrip ocaml-jsonm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ocaml-jsonm.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> codex, code, codes ocaml-jsonm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes ocaml-jsonm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whitespace -> white space, white-space, whites pace ocaml-jsonm.src:49: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build --destdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. These are all fine. Would be nice to have a man page for jsontrip. Requires -------- ocaml-jsonm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) ocaml(Buffer) ocaml(Char) ocaml(Format) ocaml(Int32) ocaml(List) ocaml(Obj) ocaml(Pervasives) ocaml(Printf) ocaml(String) ocaml(Uutf) ocaml(runtime) rtld(GNU_HASH) ocaml-jsonm-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml-jsonm ocaml-uutf-devel Provides -------- ocaml-jsonm: ocaml(Jsonm) ocaml-jsonm ocaml-jsonm(x86-64) ocaml-jsonm-devel: ocaml-jsonm-devel ocaml-jsonm-devel(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/dbuenzli/jsonm/archive/v0.9.1/ocaml-jsonm-0.9.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d7b94928d919afb0e8230618edb913bbd76f5a42f76bf682c3c1a2cb441be9c0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d7b94928d919afb0e8230618edb913bbd76f5a42f76bf682c3c1a2cb441be9c0 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1183825 Buildroot used: fedora-21-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Ocaml, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
License now included and isa macro now sorted out. Spec URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-jsonm.spec SRPM URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-jsonm-0.9.1-4.fc21.src.rpm
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
Jon, do you wish to continue with this review or shall we abandon it?
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.