Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/lwt/ocaml-ocplib-endian.spec SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/lwt/ocaml-ocplib-endian-1.0-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: Optimised functions to read and write int16/32/64 from strings, bytes and bigarrays, based on primitives added in version 4.01. The library implements three modules: EndianString works directly on strings, and provides submodules BigEndian and LittleEndian, with their unsafe counter-parts; EndianBytes works directly on bytes, and provides submodules BigEndian and LittleEndian, with their unsafe counter-parts; EndianBigstring works on bigstrings (Bigarrays of chars), and provides submodules BigEndian and LittleEndian, with their unsafe counter-parts; Fedora Account System Username: tc01 This is a new dependency for the lwt.unix module in ocaml-lwt.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [-]: 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: [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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. It looks like fedora-review screwed up here, but I checked the source files and (some of them) have licenses. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/ocaml/ocplib- endian(set, defaulting, locale,, Failed, C, to), /usr/share/doc/ocaml- ocplib-endian(set, defaulting, locale,, Failed, C, to), /usr/share/licenses/ocaml-ocplib-endian(set, defaulting, locale,, Failed, C, to) Another bug in fedora-review. The actual directory ownerships are fine. [-]: %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. I think it's possible there's a conflict with an existing ocaml-ocplib-* package, but if there is we'll resolve this later in Fedora. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [-]: 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 10240 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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. If this breaks the build it is not required, but it would be a good idea to test this and/or add a comment to the %build section. [x]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ocaml- ocplib-endian-devel This could be missing? [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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. [ ]: 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 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. I also checked rpmlint output and provides/requires and it all looks sane to me. There are a few [!] items above - please check them!
Thanks for the review! > [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. > If this breaks the build it is not required, but it would be a good > idea to test this and/or add a comment to the %build section. Switched to "%make_build build"; it seems to work fine. > [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ocaml- > ocplib-endian-devel > This could be missing? Ouch, yes, my bad. I wrote "isa" instead of "_isa"... fixed. Those were the two [!]s, let me know if anything else needs changing. Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/lwt/ocaml-ocplib-endian.spec SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/lwt/ocaml-ocplib-endian-1.0-2.fc30.src.rpm
Only two small changes were requested during the review, and I have manually checked they were both done. ====================== Therefore this package is APPROVED by rjones ======================
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ocaml-ocplib-endian
Hmm... the tests failed on s390x. https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2536/38292536/build.log Guessing this is because it's a big endian architecture; the failure happens in this block: https://github.com/OCamlPro/ocplib-endian/blob/master/tests/test_bigstring.cppo.ml#L129 I'm tempted to report this upstream and just turn off the tests on s390x for now, so we can get this in and fix lwt.
Definitely make sure it's reported upstream - thanks!
Filed this upstream: https://github.com/OCamlPro/ocplib-endian/issues/20 It's now built successfully for Rawhide; will build for F31 too.
FEDORA-2019-c9c44cf83c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-c9c44cf83c
ocaml-ocplib-endian-1.0-3.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2019-c9c44cf83c
ocaml-ocplib-endian-1.0-3.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.