Spec URL: http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/base64/ocaml-base64.spec SRPM URL: http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/base64/ocaml-base64-2.0.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Base64 library for OCaml Fedora Account System Username: rjones
Scratch build in Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10465184
Taking this review. Richard, mind reviewing either of these in return? python-traceback2 -- Backport of the traceback module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245754 (blocks the update of python-testtools and thus some OpenStack updates) python-hypothesis - A library for property based testing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246598 (pretty much quickcheck for Python, it even minimizes failing examples) Thanks -- Michel
I took python-hypothesis. Thanks.
One issue -- - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib64/ocaml/base64/META See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles looking at the spec, looks like you don't need to include the META file explicitly since you're including the entire base64 directory anyway? %{_libdir}/ocaml/base64 %{_libdir}/ocaml/base64/META <---
Apart from the duplicate files, one other problem -- the -devel package does not seem to depend on the main package [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ocaml- base64-devel Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib64/ocaml/base64/META See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: 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 %license. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "ISC", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/sources/fedora/reviews/1246557-ocaml- base64/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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 [x]: 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. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [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 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 uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Ocaml: [x]: This should never happen ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. Doesn't apply to OCaml, irrelevant [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. => Linked from README.md, that should suffice [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- base64-devel [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. There does not seem to be a meaningful test suite tried ./configure --enable-tests && make test; runs but doesn't do anything besides building) [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: 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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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-base64-2.0.0-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm ocaml-base64-devel-2.0.0-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm ocaml-base64-2.0.0-1.fc22.src.rpm ocaml-base64.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US radix -> radii, radio, rad ix ocaml-base64.x86_64: E: no-binary ocaml-base64.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ocaml-base64-devel.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Development files for ocaml-base64. ocaml-base64.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US radix -> radii, radio, rad ix ocaml-base64.src:35: W: configure-without-libdir-spec 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ocaml-base64-debuginfo-2.0.0-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- ocaml-base64 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml(Bytes) ocaml(CamlinternalFormatBasics) ocaml(Pervasives) ocaml(String) ocaml(runtime) ocaml-base64-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- ocaml-base64: ocaml(B64) ocaml-base64 ocaml-base64(x86-64) ocaml-base64-devel: ocaml-base64-devel ocaml-base64-devel(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mirage/ocaml-base64/archive/v2.0.0/ocaml-base64-2.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 029b6a7af1493a077dc25c8e0f3534e5f5ff6e4260e3998a9ca3850fb7238c2c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 029b6a7af1493a077dc25c8e0f3534e5f5ff6e4260e3998a9ca3850fb7238c2c Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1246557 Buildroot used: fedora-22-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Ocaml, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Spec URL: http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/base64/ocaml-base64.spec SRPM URL: http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/base64/ocaml-base64-2.0.0-2.fc22.src.rpm Changes in this release: * Sat Jul 25 2015 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones> - 2.0.0-2 - Make -devel package depend on fully versioned base package. - Remove duplicate META file.
Changes look good, APPROVED
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ocaml-base64 Short Description: Base64 library for OCaml Upstream URL: https://github.com/mirage/ocaml-base64 Owners: rjones Branches: f21 f22 f23 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Thanks everyone - it's now building for Rawhide and the other branches.
ocaml-base64-2.0.0-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ocaml-base64-2.0.0-2.fc22
For f21 I cannot submit an update: Creating a new update for ocaml-base64-2.0.0-2.fc21 ocaml-base64-2.0.0-2.fc21 not tagged as an update candidate
(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #12) > For f21 I cannot submit an update: > > Creating a new update for ocaml-base64-2.0.0-2.fc21 > ocaml-base64-2.0.0-2.fc21 not tagged as an update candidate Oh I see, it's because the build failed, never mind.
Actually this package is incompatible with the version of OCaml in Fedora 21 (because of missing 'Bytes' module), so adding f21 branch was a mistake on my part.
ocaml-base64-2.0.0-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.