Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/opam/ocaml-cudf.spec SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/opam/ocaml-cudf-0.9-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: CUDF (for Common Upgradeability Description Format) is a format for describing upgrade scenarios in package-based Free and Open Source Software distribution. In every such scenario there exists a package universe (i.e. a set of packages) known to a package manager application, a package status (i.e. the currently installed packages), and a user request (i.e. a wish to change the set of installed packages) that need to be fulfilled. CUDF permits to describe an upgrade scenario in a way that is both distribution-independent and package-manager-independent. CUDF offers a rigorous semantics of dependency solving that enables to independently check the correctness of upgrade solutions proposed by package managers. CUDF adoption would enable to share dependency solver components across different package managers, both intra- and inter-distributions. Fedora Account System Username: tc01 This is another opam dependency. Unlike ocaml-cmdliner, debuginfo generation appears to happen fine here when the appropriate tag is set.
*** Bug 1183191 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Hello, - Please use %make_build instead of make when you can: %make_build %ifarch %{ocaml_native_compiler} %make_build opt %endif %make_build doc - Since the subpackage -devel depends on the main one, it is not necessary to include a %license COPYING inside its %files section. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v3 or later)", "LGPL", "Unknown or generated". 68 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ocaml-cudf/review-ocaml- cudf/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 245760 bytes in 28 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]: 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]: 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 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]: 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 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: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ocaml- cudf-devel , ocaml-cudf-debuginfo [?]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define libname %(echo %{name} | sed -e 's/^ocaml-//') [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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-cudf-0.9-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm ocaml-cudf-devel-0.9-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm ocaml-cudf-debuginfo-0.9-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm ocaml-cudf-0.9-1.fc28.src.rpm ocaml-cudf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US intra -> intro, infra, intranet ocaml-cudf.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ocaml-cudf.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id ocaml-cudf.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id ocaml-cudf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cudf-parse-822 ocaml-cudf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US intra -> intro, infra, intranet 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Thanks for the review! I don't wish to sound ungrateful, but I think you missed something: > %define libname %(echo %{name} | sed -e 's/^ocaml-//') It is preferred to use "global" over "define" for this sort of thing: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define However, the OCaml package template (rpmdev-newspec -t ocaml), like most of those templates, is sadly out of date and still uses %define, and I forgot to change it before submitting the first batch of reviews. I meant to update this submission too, but didn't get around to it before you reviewed the package. :) I will fix this (and the other things you mentioned) on import. But I wanted to say something here so you're aware that this is something to look for in other package reviews. Anyway, thanks again.
You're right I've missed it, I usually look at the %global at the beginning of the file and didn't see the one in the middle of it.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ocaml-cudf
ocaml-cudf-0.9-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-bc16507ec8
ocaml-cudf-0.9-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-7d578e4fb3
ocaml-cudf-0.9-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-bc16507ec8
ocaml-cudf-0.9-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-7d578e4fb3
ocaml-cudf-0.9-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
ocaml-cudf-0.9-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.