Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-fieldslib/ocaml-fieldslib.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-fieldslib/ocaml-fieldslib-0.13.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: This package contains an OCaml syntax extension to define first class values representing record fields, to get and set record fields, iterate and fold over all fields of a record and create new record values.
Sorry for taking so long to review this Jerry. I've found the following minor issues: - CONTRIBUTING.md is imho not necessary to include as %doc - upstream's opam file notes the following dependency on ocaml-base: {>= "v0.13" & < "v0.14"} but the spec has only >= 0.13. If that is intended, maybe add a comment explaining that? - since it took me so long to review this, upstream released 0.14 in the meantime Otherwise this looks perfectly fine to me!
(In reply to dan.cermak from comment #1) > Sorry for taking so long to review this Jerry. I've found the following > minor issues: > - CONTRIBUTING.md is imho not necessary to include as %doc Agreed. I have dropped it. > - upstream's opam file notes the following dependency on ocaml-base: {>= > "v0.13" & < "v0.14"} but the spec has only >= 0.13. If that is intended, > maybe add a comment explaining that? I didn't realize it was possible to express both constraints. I've added a boolean expression that does the job. > - since it took me so long to review this, upstream released 0.14 in the > meantime They did. I need to update all of the Jane Street packages from 0.13 to 0.14, but haven't had time to work through the mock builds yet. With the datacenter move looming, I probably won't get around to it for a couple of weeks or so. Can we finish the review with the 0.13 version, then I can update the whole Jane Street ecosystem to 0.14 later? > Otherwise this looks perfectly fine to me! Thanks for the review, Dan. No worries on the delay. $DAYJOB has been keeping me pretty busy lately anyway. New URLs: Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-fieldslib/ocaml-fieldslib.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-fieldslib/ocaml-fieldslib-0.13.0-1.fc33.src.rpm
Oops. I meant this of course: Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-fieldslib/ocaml-fieldslib.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-fieldslib/ocaml-fieldslib-0.13.0-2.fc33.src.rpm
Thank you for the fixes, I'm fine with packaging 0.13 at first. Package approved! ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dan/fedora- scm/1833469-ocaml-fieldslib/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. [!]: 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 51200 bytes in 7 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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: [-]: 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. [!]: 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. [-]: %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.
Jerry, as we seem to be getting towards the end of the list of new packages, could you give me a quick summary some time of which new packages were added to Fedora in the end? (Too many emails ...) There is an expected OCaml 4.11 beta coming up later in June, and I will rebuild everything for that.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ocaml-fieldslib
FEDORA-2020-841c1c239d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-841c1c239d
(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #5) > Jerry, as we seem to be getting towards the end of the list of > new packages, could you give me a quick summary some time of which > new packages were added to Fedora in the end? (Too many emails ...) > > There is an expected OCaml 4.11 beta coming up later in June, > and I will rebuild everything for that. Packages added in the last 2 months: - ocaml-compiler-libs-janestreet - ocaml-fieldslib - ocaml-ppx-compare - ocaml-ppx-inline-test - ocaml-ppxlib - ocaml-stdio - ocaml-variantslib Packages still in the pipeline: - bug 1833476: ocaml-ppx-fields-conv - bug 1833477: ocaml-ppx-sexp-conv - bug 1833478: ocaml-ppx-variants-conv - bug 1833479: ocaml-ppx-custom-printf Pretty much everything on both lists is at version 0.13.0 in Rawhide and version 0.14.0 upstream. I will try to get test builds done and all of the changes pushed to git before you start building the OCaml 4.11 beta. I would also like to update ocaml-bisect-ppx to version 2.4.x, but it needs ocaml-ppx-tools-versioned 5.4.x.
Also, in order to update utop to 2.6.0 (the version compatible with OCaml 4.11), I'll need ocaml-lambda-term 3.1.x.
Thanks - no rush, alpha2 was only released last week so I think we've got a few weeks to go.
ocaml-fieldslib-0.13.0-2.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 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-2020-841c1c239d
FEDORA-2020-841c1c239d has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.