Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-compiler-libs-janestreet/ocaml-compiler-libs-janestreet.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-compiler-libs-janestreet/ocaml-compiler-libs-janestreet-0.12.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: This package exposes the OCaml compiler libraries repackaged under the toplevel names Ocaml_common, Ocaml_bytecomp, Ocaml_optcomp, etc. A note on the package name: the main ocaml package contains a subpackage containing the compiler-libs module. Since we prefix ocaml package names with "ocaml-", that package is named ocaml-compiler-libs. This package contains a module named "ocaml-compiler-libs". Clearly the package name cannot match the module name, since that package name is already in use. We could prefix it with another "ocaml-", making the package name ocaml-ocaml-compiler-libs, but that strikes me as less helpful for somebody searching for this package than the name I have chosen. I am willing to listen to arguments that I have not chosen the best name.
I think the name is good as it is and way better than ocaml-ocaml-compiler-libs. Two minor issues: - Where did you obtain the minimum required version of dune from? Upstream's opam file has a 1.0 and not 1.5.1. - Contributing.md is imho not useful in a system package. Beside that: 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". 17 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dan/fedora- scm/1833472-ocaml-compiler-libs-janestreet/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. [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 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: [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. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: 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) > I think the name is good as it is and way better than > ocaml-ocaml-compiler-libs. > > Two minor issues: > - Where did you obtain the minimum required version of dune from? Upstream's > opam file has a 1.0 and not 1.5.1. Whoops, I was looking at git head instead of the 0.12.1 release. Fixed. > - Contributing.md is imho not useful in a system package. Agreed. I have removed it. Changes at the URLs above. > Beside that: package approved! Thank you, Dan!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ocaml-compiler-libs-janestreet
FEDORA-2020-362803c457 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-362803c457
FEDORA-2020-362803c457 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-362803c457 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-362803c457 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-362803c457 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.