Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-graphics/ocaml-graphics.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-graphics/ocaml-graphics-5.1.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: The graphics library provides a set of portable drawing primitives. Drawing takes place in a separate window that is created when Graphics.open_graph is called. Version 2.0 of ocamlgraph has been released, and needs this package for its tests. This package is also an optional dependency of ocaml-findlib, although using it that way would introduce a build dependency loop. Sigh.
Thanks for the pynn review Jerry, I'll review this one ASAP.
That looks good. XXX APPROVED XXX Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. ^ This is OK for OCaml packages [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", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* [generated file]". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora- reviews/1912655-ocaml-graphics/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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 122880 bytes in 12 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 ^ Eh. Not sure what this means :D ===== 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. ^ Not been able to test this. [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. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ocaml-graphics-5.1.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm ocaml-graphics-devel-5.1.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm ocaml-graphics-debuginfo-5.1.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm ocaml-graphics-debugsource-5.1.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm ocaml-graphics-5.1.0-1.fc34.src.rpm 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ocaml-graphics-debuginfo-5.1.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- ocaml-graphics: /usr/lib64/ocaml/stublibs/dllgraphics_stubs.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ocaml/graphics/releases/download/5.1.0/graphics-5.1.0.tbz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c596ed036574c64bdaa313a7198953f081becfe5e3d78db1a2913170eb49e99b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c596ed036574c64bdaa313a7198953f081becfe5e3d78db1a2913170eb49e99b Requires -------- ocaml-graphics (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libX11.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) ocaml(CamlinternalFormatBasics) ocaml(Graphics) ocaml(Stdlib) ocaml(Stdlib__array) ocaml(Stdlib__callback) ocaml(Stdlib__hashtbl) ocaml(Stdlib__list) ocaml(Stdlib__seq) ocaml(Stdlib__sys) ocamlx(Stdlib) ocamlx(Stdlib__array) ocamlx(Stdlib__callback) ocamlx(Stdlib__hashtbl) ocamlx(Stdlib__list) ocamlx(Stdlib__sys) rtld(GNU_HASH) ocaml-graphics-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libX11-devel(x86-64) ocaml(CamlinternalFormatBasics) ocaml(Graphics) ocaml(Stdlib) ocaml(Stdlib__array) ocaml(Stdlib__callback) ocaml(Stdlib__hashtbl) ocaml(Stdlib__list) ocaml(Stdlib__seq) ocaml(Stdlib__sys) ocaml-graphics(x86-64) ocamlx(Stdlib) ocamlx(Stdlib__array) ocamlx(Stdlib__callback) ocamlx(Stdlib__hashtbl) ocamlx(Stdlib__list) ocamlx(Stdlib__sys) ocaml-graphics-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml-graphics-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- ocaml-graphics: ocaml(Graphics) ocaml(GraphicsX11) ocaml-graphics ocaml-graphics(x86-64) ocamlx(Graphics) ocamlx(GraphicsX11) ocaml-graphics-devel: ocaml(Graphics) ocaml(GraphicsX11) ocaml-graphics-devel ocaml-graphics-devel(x86-64) ocamlx(Graphics) ocamlx(GraphicsX11) ocaml-graphics-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) ocaml-graphics-debuginfo ocaml-graphics-debuginfo(x86-64) ocaml-graphics-debugsource: ocaml-graphics-debugsource ocaml-graphics-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1912655 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Ocaml, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, R, fonts, PHP, Haskell, Python, Perl, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #2) > Ocaml: > [x]: This should never happen > ^ > Eh. Not sure what this means :D That pops up in OCaml package reviews now and then. I tried investigating it once without a whole lot of success. I guess I should try again. Thanks for the review!
I'm fairly sure I looked into that message once and it's just a bug / left-over message. Safe to ignore it anyway.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ocaml-graphics
Built in Rawhide.