Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-ppx-fields-conv/ocaml-ppx-fields-conv.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-ppx-fields-conv/ocaml-ppx-fields-conv-0.13.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: Ppx_fields_conv is a ppx rewriter that can be used to define first-class values representing record fields, and additional routines, to get and set record fields, iterate and fold over all fields of a record and create new record values.
Unfortunately the package currently does not build in my copr (https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/defolos/ocaml-devel/build/1428270/), the build fails with: Error: Files /usr/lib64/ocaml/ppxlib/ast/ppxlib_ast.cmxa and /usr/lib64/ocaml/ocaml-compiler-libs/shadow/ocaml_shadow.cmxa make inconsistent assumptions over interface Ocaml_shadow
Do you have builds of ocaml-ppxlib and ocaml-compiler-libs-janestreet in your copr? If so, could you remove them? I just tried building this package with "mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --enablerepo=local" and it succeeded.
Also, I've made the same updates as for the other packages. New URLs: Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-ppx-fields-conv/ocaml-ppx-fields-conv.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-ppx-fields-conv/ocaml-ppx-fields-conv-0.13.0-2.fc33.src.rpm
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #2) > Do you have builds of ocaml-ppxlib and ocaml-compiler-libs-janestreet in > your copr? If so, could you remove them? I just tried building this > package with "mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --enablerepo=local" and it > succeeded. Indeed, I had ocaml-compiler-libs-janestreet in the copr, removing it fixed the build issue.
Thanks for the fixes Jerry, package is 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". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dan/fedora- scm/1833476-ocaml-ppx-fields-conv/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 61440 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: 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: [-]: 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. [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]: 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.
FEDORA-2020-ffb50aad35 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-ffb50aad35
ocaml-ppx-fields-conv-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-ffb50aad35
FEDORA-2020-ffb50aad35 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.