Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-bos/ocaml-bos.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-bos/ocaml-bos-0.2.1-1.fc36 Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: Bos provides support for basic and robust interaction with the operating system in OCaml. It has functions to access the process environment, parse command line arguments, interact with the file system and run command line programs. Bos works equally well on POSIX and Windows operating systems.
The source rpm is not accessible, could you take a look what`s going on Jerry?
Same problem as with ocaml-rresult, an apparent copy & paste error. You would think I would have learned to do that properly by now. Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-bos/ocaml-bos.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-bos/ocaml-bos-0.2.1-1.fc36.src.rpm
Looks good! Rpmlint throws a lot of errors and warnings though. Most of them are dismissable, but this one I can't explain: ocaml-bos.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information Could you please verify this isn't a problem? Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Remarks: ======== - Unnecessary versioned buildrequires - ocaml >= 4.08.0 - ocaml-fmt-devel >= 0.8.7 - ocaml-rresult-devel >= 0.7.0 - ocaml-topkg-devel >= 1.0.3 These are satisfied in the last 3 Fedora versions (or not available), so they should be unversioned. Issues: ======= - rpmlint errors (see belowe) ===== 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", "ISC License", "*No copyright* ISC License". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/arthur/fedora-review/2031160-ocaml- bos/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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [-]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. Rpmlint (manually) ------------------ ocaml-bos-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/ocaml/bos/bos.cmxs-0.2.1-1.fc36.x86_64.debug ocaml-bos-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/ocaml/bos/bos_setup.cmxs-0.2.1-1.fc36.x86_64.debug ocaml-bos-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/ocaml/bos/bos_top.cmxs-0.2.1-1.fc36.x86_64.debug ocaml-bos-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ocaml/bos/bos.a ocaml-bos-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ocaml/bos/bos_setup.a ocaml-bos-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ocaml/bos/bos_top.a ocaml-bos.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/ocaml/bos/bos.cmxs ocaml-bos.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/ocaml/bos/bos_setup.cmxs ocaml-bos.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/ocaml/bos/bos_top.cmxs ocaml-bos-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/ocaml/bos/bos.cmxs-0.2.1-1.fc36.x86_64.debug ocaml-bos-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/ocaml/bos/bos_setup.cmxs-0.2.1-1.fc36.x86_64.debug ocaml-bos-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/ocaml/bos/bos_top.cmxs-0.2.1-1.fc36.x86_64.debug ocaml-bos-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation ocaml-bos-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation ocaml-bos-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ocaml-bos-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/09/4035ed89dafce8469fa3486f8fe617880395cf ../../../.build-id/09/4035ed89dafce8469fa3486f8fe617880395cf ocaml-bos-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/0c/b5856861a0673dca223b722fc32a50924c237f ../../../.build-id/0c/b5856861a0673dca223b722fc32a50924c237f ocaml-bos-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/8d/327ede4f1ddc44ffd1b0280b9dbcb96b7d891c ../../../.build-id/8d/327ede4f1ddc44ffd1b0280b9dbcb96b7d891c ==== 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 9 warnings, 9 badness; has taken 6.4 s ====
(In reply to Arthur Bols from comment #3) > Looks good! Rpmlint throws a lot of errors and warnings though. Most of them > are dismissable, but this one I can't explain: > ocaml-bos.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information > Could you please verify this isn't a problem? This is due to a shared object that does not depend on the C library, which can happen when the OCaml compiler generates a shared object. It still functions correctly, as the OCaml runtime is able to load the shared object. You will see the same thing happen with some of the dependencies of ocaml-bos; for example, run "rpmlint -i ocaml-astring" in a mock shell after building ocaml-bos. > - Unnecessary versioned buildrequires > - ocaml >= 4.08.0 > - ocaml-fmt-devel >= 0.8.7 > - ocaml-rresult-devel >= 0.7.0 > - ocaml-topkg-devel >= 1.0.3 > These are satisfied in the last 3 Fedora versions (or not available), so > they should be unversioned. You already know the answer to this one, so I won't bore you with it again. :-) > Issues: > ======= > - rpmlint errors (see belowe) [snip] > Rpmlint (manually) > ------------------ > ocaml-bos-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object > /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/ocaml/bos/bos.cmxs-0.2.1-1.fc36.x86_64.debug These errors are normal when running rpmlint on debuginfo packages. It is telling you that the file full of debuginfo that it stripped out of a shared library has not itself been stripped. That's kind of the point. :-) > ocaml-bos-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo > /usr/lib64/ocaml/bos/bos.a This one is interesting. If I add "exit 1" at the end of %install to force a build failure, I can look at bos.a in /builddir/build/BUILDROOT. It has debuginfo at that point. If I add "exit 1" to the beginning of %check, then bos.a has been stripped. In fact, RPM runs find-debuginfo and friends between %install and %check. In particular, it runs "/usr/lib/rpm/brp-strip-static-archive /usr/bin/strip". That must be the culprit, because the debuginfo is gone when %check starts. That is out of my control. The %build and %install scripts correctly place archives with debuginfo into the buildroot. > ocaml-bos-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink > /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/09/4035ed89dafce8469fa3486f8fe617880395cf > ../../../.build-id/09/4035ed89dafce8469fa3486f8fe617880395cf These errors are again a natural consequence of running rpmlint on a debuginfo package.
> This is due to a shared object that does not depend on the C library, which can happen when the OCaml compiler generates a shared object. It still functions correctly, as the OCaml runtime is able to load the shared object. You will see the same thing happen with some of the dependencies of ocaml-bos; for example, run "rpmlint -i ocaml-astring" in a mock shell after building ocaml-bos. Thanks! I was waiting for this answer to finish the last two. I never saw this one, so wanted to be sure. :) > These errors are normal when running rpmlint on debuginfo packages. It is telling you that the file full of debuginfo that it stripped out of a shared library has not itself been stripped. That's kind of the point. :-) Thanks for explaining it. I should've been more clear that I just meant the errors for the non devel/debuginfo package. :/ Package approved! I'll finish the other 2 now.
Thank you, Arthur. I appreciate all the work you are going to to review these packages.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ocaml-bos
This package has been built in Rawhide.