Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/jbuilder/jbuilder.spec SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/jbuilder/jbuilder-1.0-0.2.beta11.fc26.src.rpm Description: Jbuilder is a build system designed for OCaml/Reason projects only. It focuses on providing the user with a consistent experience and takes care of most of the low-level details of OCaml compilation. All you have to do is provide a description of your project and Jbuilder will do the rest. The scheme it implements is inspired from the one used inside Jane Street and adapted to the open source world. It has matured over a long time and is used daily by hundred of developpers, which means that it is highly tested and productive. Fedora Account System Username: tc01
For reference here's the Debian packaging bug: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=870130 I meant to ask Stephane how he intends to package this since it didn't look very straightforward. Also this is a dependency of new ocaml-lwt and some other packages.
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-ocaml-maint/packages/jbuilder.git/
The main packaging problem is that jbuilder uses opam-installer to install itself, but jbuilder is required to package opam... so I have to manually install the package files. However this is not too difficult since it's currently just a binary and a bunch of documentation. The actual build is pretty straightforward (aside from the bundled dependencies, which cannot easily be removed).
Hello, Just tiny details: - Use this URL for Source0: Source0: https://github.com/janestreet/%{libname}/archive/%{commit0}/%{libname}-%{shortcommit0}.tar.gz - Make use of predefined macros: make release %{?_smp_mflags} make doc → %make_build release %make_build doc - Bump version to beta12? https://github.com/janestreet/jbuilder/releases - Typo in the description: jbuilder.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US developpers -> developers, developer None of this is blocking, just fix what you want in import. 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", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (unspecified)", "LGPL (v2.1)", "ISC", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 816 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/jbuilder/review-jbuilder/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/jbuilder [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/jbuilder, /usr/lib64/ocaml [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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 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]: 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 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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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 jbuilder-doc [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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. [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. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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: jbuilder-1.0-0.2.beta11.fc28.x86_64.rpm jbuilder-doc-1.0-0.2.beta11.fc28.noarch.rpm jbuilder-1.0-0.2.beta11.fc28.src.rpm jbuilder.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) composable -> compo sable, compo-sable, compos able jbuilder.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US developpers -> developers, developer, overdevelops jbuilder.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/jbuilder jbuilder.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib jbuilder.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id jbuilder.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id jbuilder.x86_64: W: ocaml-naming-policy-not-applied /usr/lib64/ocaml/jbuilder jbuilder-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US composable -> compo sable, compo-sable, compos able jbuilder.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) composable -> compo sable, compo-sable, compos able jbuilder.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US developpers -> developers, developer, overdevelops jbuilder.src:8: W: macro-in-comment %{dist} jbuilder.src:23: W: macro-in-comment %{libname} jbuilder.src:23: W: macro-in-comment %{libname} jbuilder.src:23: W: macro-in-comment %{version} jbuilder.src:39: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(ocaml-opam-file-format) jbuilder.src:41: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(ocaml-re) jbuilder.src:64: W: macro-in-comment %{libname} jbuilder.src:64: W: macro-in-comment %{version} jbuilder.src:64: W: macro-in-comment %{pre_tag} jbuilder.src: W: no-%build-section 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 20 warnings.
Great, thanks for the review! > - Bump version to beta12? https://github.com/janestreet/jbuilder/releases Yes, fortunately beta12 came out soon after I posted the review request; there were not many changes upstream. I have updated the spec with this (and your other comments) and will import beta12. For posterity: Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/jbuilder/jbuilder.spec SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/jbuilder/jbuilder-1.0-0.3.beta12.fc26.src.rpm
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jbuilder
jbuilder-1.0-0.3.beta12.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-774ffdb48d
jbuilder-1.0-0.3.beta12.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-2df5fe23b2
jbuilder-1.0-0.3.beta12.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-2017-774ffdb48d
jbuilder-1.0-0.3.beta12.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-2017-2df5fe23b2
jbuilder-1.0-0.3.beta12.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
jbuilder-1.0-0.3.beta12.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.