Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-ppxfind/ocaml-ppxfind.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-ppxfind/ocaml-ppxfind-1.3-1.fc32.src.rpm RPMLINTRC URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-ppxfind/ocaml-ppxfind.rpmlintrc Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: Ppxfind is a small command line tool that enables the application of ppx rewriters to a file. It supports both new style ppx rewriters (driverized) and old styles rewriters. At the moment new style ppx rewriters are executed in byte-code mode as Ppxfind relies on dynamic loading and the packaging of a lot of ppx rewriters is incomplete, i.e. the cmxs files are missing.
Thanks for submitting this, package is approved! Stupid question though: why are ocaml-ppx-derivers-devel and ocaml-result-devel required? They are not mentioned in the opam file upstream. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dan/fedora-scm/1798796-ocaml-ppxfind/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /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. [x]: 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 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [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). [?]: 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. [-]: 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. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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.
(In reply to dan.cermak from comment #1) > Thanks for submitting this, package is approved! Thank you for the review, Dan! > Stupid question though: why are ocaml-ppx-derivers-devel and > ocaml-result-devel required? They are not mentioned in the opam file > upstream. I think they are both missing dependencies of ocaml-migrate-parsetree-devel. I'm not sure of that, but if they are, I should file a bug on ocaml-migrate-parsetree to get them added. Evidence: %{_libdir}/ocaml/ocaml-migrate-parsetree/opam contains this: depends: [ "result" "ppx_derivers" "dune" {build & >= "1.9.0"} "ocaml" {>= "4.02.3"} ] And %{_libdir}/ocaml/ocaml-migrate-parsetree/migrate_parsetree_ast_io.mli contains "open Result". All I know for sure is that omitting those two BRs leads to a build failure, with a message indicating certain files from their -devel subpackages are missing.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ocaml-ppxfind
Built in Rawhide.