Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-odoc-parser/ocaml-odoc-parser.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-odoc-parser/ocaml-odoc-parser-1.0.0-1.fc36.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: Odoc-parser is a parser for odoc markup, which is an extension of the original markup language parsed by ocamldoc. OCaml code can contain specially formatted comments that are used to document the interfaces of modules. These comments are delimited by `(**` and `*)`. This parser is intended to be used to parse the contents of these comments.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Remarks: ======== - Unnecessary versioned buildrequires - ocaml >= 4.02.0 - ocaml-dune >= 2.8 These are satisfied in the last 3 Fedora versions, so they should be unversioned. - Add some newlines in the %files section for readability Issues: ======= ===== 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 [generated file]", "*No copyright* ISC License". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/arthur/fedora-review/2036395-ocaml-odoc-parser/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 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: [-]: 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. [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-odoc-parser-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/ocaml/odoc-parser/odoc_parser.cmxs-1.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64.debug ocaml-odoc-parser-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ocaml/odoc-parser/odoc_parser.a ocaml-odoc-parser.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/ocaml/odoc-parser/odoc_parser.cmxs ocaml-odoc-parser-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/ocaml/odoc-parser/odoc_parser.cmxs-1.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64.debug ocaml-odoc-parser-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation ocaml-odoc-parser-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation ocaml-odoc-parser-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ocaml-odoc-parser-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/14/b96ac044d8d2c30f7e11453883765be3ab8a30 ../../../.build-id/14/b96ac044d8d2c30f7e11453883765be3ab8a30 ==== 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 5 warnings, 3 badness; has taken 2.2 s ===== Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ocaml-doc/odoc-parser/releases/download/1.0.0/odoc-parser-1.0.0.tbz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b6aa08ea71a9ebad9b2bebc4da1eda0d713cf3674e6d57d10459d934286e7aa1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b6aa08ea71a9ebad9b2bebc4da1eda0d713cf3674e6d57d10459d934286e7aa1 Requires -------- ocaml-odoc-parser (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml(Astring) ocaml(CamlinternalFormatBasics) ocaml(Odoc_parser__) ocaml(Odoc_parser__Ast) ocaml(Odoc_parser__Lexer) ocaml(Odoc_parser__Loc) ocaml(Odoc_parser__Parse_error) ocaml(Odoc_parser__Syntax) ocaml(Odoc_parser__Token) ocaml(Odoc_parser__Warning) ocaml(Stdlib) ocaml(Stdlib__Array) ocaml(Stdlib__Buffer) ocaml(Stdlib__Either) ocaml(Stdlib__Format) ocaml(Stdlib__Lexing) ocaml(Stdlib__List) ocaml(Stdlib__Map) ocaml(Stdlib__Printf) ocaml(Stdlib__Seq) ocaml(Stdlib__Set) ocaml(Stdlib__Stream) ocaml(Stdlib__String) ocaml(Stdlib__Uchar) ocamlx(Astring) ocamlx(Odoc_parser__Lexer) ocamlx(Odoc_parser__Loc) ocamlx(Odoc_parser__Parse_error) ocamlx(Odoc_parser__Syntax) ocamlx(Odoc_parser__Token) ocamlx(Odoc_parser__Warning) ocamlx(Stdlib) ocamlx(Stdlib__Array) ocamlx(Stdlib__Buffer) ocamlx(Stdlib__Format) ocamlx(Stdlib__Lexing) ocamlx(Stdlib__List) ocamlx(Stdlib__Printf) ocamlx(Stdlib__Stream) ocamlx(Stdlib__String) rtld(GNU_HASH) ocaml-odoc-parser-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml(Astring) ocaml(CamlinternalFormatBasics) ocaml(Odoc_parser__) ocaml(Odoc_parser__Ast) ocaml(Odoc_parser__Lexer) ocaml(Odoc_parser__Loc) ocaml(Odoc_parser__Parse_error) ocaml(Odoc_parser__Syntax) ocaml(Odoc_parser__Token) ocaml(Odoc_parser__Warning) ocaml(Stdlib) ocaml(Stdlib__Array) ocaml(Stdlib__Buffer) ocaml(Stdlib__Either) ocaml(Stdlib__Format) ocaml(Stdlib__Lexing) ocaml(Stdlib__List) ocaml(Stdlib__Map) ocaml(Stdlib__Printf) ocaml(Stdlib__Seq) ocaml(Stdlib__Set) ocaml(Stdlib__Stream) ocaml(Stdlib__String) ocaml(Stdlib__Uchar) ocaml-astring-devel(x86-64) ocaml-odoc-parser(x86-64) ocaml-result-devel(x86-64) ocamlx(Astring) ocamlx(Odoc_parser__Lexer) ocamlx(Odoc_parser__Loc) ocamlx(Odoc_parser__Parse_error) ocamlx(Odoc_parser__Syntax) ocamlx(Odoc_parser__Token) ocamlx(Odoc_parser__Warning) ocamlx(Stdlib) ocamlx(Stdlib__Array) ocamlx(Stdlib__Buffer) ocamlx(Stdlib__Format) ocamlx(Stdlib__Lexing) ocamlx(Stdlib__List) ocamlx(Stdlib__Printf) ocamlx(Stdlib__Stream) ocamlx(Stdlib__String) ocaml-odoc-parser-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml-odoc-parser-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- ocaml-odoc-parser: ocaml(Odoc_parser) ocaml(Odoc_parser__) ocaml(Odoc_parser__Ast) ocaml(Odoc_parser__Lexer) ocaml(Odoc_parser__Loc) ocaml(Odoc_parser__Parse_error) ocaml(Odoc_parser__Syntax) ocaml(Odoc_parser__Token) ocaml(Odoc_parser__Warning) ocaml-odoc-parser ocaml-odoc-parser(x86-64) ocamlx(Odoc_parser) ocamlx(Odoc_parser__) ocamlx(Odoc_parser__Ast) ocamlx(Odoc_parser__Lexer) ocamlx(Odoc_parser__Loc) ocamlx(Odoc_parser__Parse_error) ocamlx(Odoc_parser__Syntax) ocamlx(Odoc_parser__Token) ocamlx(Odoc_parser__Warning) ocaml-odoc-parser-devel: ocaml(Odoc_parser) ocaml(Odoc_parser__) ocaml(Odoc_parser__Ast) ocaml(Odoc_parser__Lexer) ocaml(Odoc_parser__Loc) ocaml(Odoc_parser__Parse_error) ocaml(Odoc_parser__Syntax) ocaml(Odoc_parser__Token) ocaml(Odoc_parser__Warning) ocaml-odoc-parser-devel ocaml-odoc-parser-devel(x86-64) ocamlx(Odoc_parser) ocamlx(Odoc_parser__) ocamlx(Odoc_parser__Ast) ocamlx(Odoc_parser__Lexer) ocamlx(Odoc_parser__Loc) ocamlx(Odoc_parser__Parse_error) ocamlx(Odoc_parser__Syntax) ocamlx(Odoc_parser__Token) ocamlx(Odoc_parser__Warning) ocaml-odoc-parser-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) ocaml-odoc-parser-debuginfo ocaml-odoc-parser-debuginfo(x86-64) ocaml-odoc-parser-debugsource: ocaml-odoc-parser-debugsource ocaml-odoc-parser-debugsource(x86-64) Looks good, package approved! Please address the issue above before import. If you have a good reason to keep them there, that's fine, but generally they should be removed.
Thank you for the review, Arthur! (In reply to Arthur Bols from comment #1) > - Unnecessary versioned buildrequires > - ocaml >= 4.02.0 > - ocaml-dune >= 2.8 > These are satisfied in the last 3 Fedora versions, so they should be > unversioned. Those version requirements come from odoc-parser.opam. The practice of reflecting such version requirements in the BuildRequires is common in Fedora's OCaml packages. The idea is that if we build for various Fedora or EPEL releases, we don't have to check the version requirements every time, because mock/dnf/rpmbuild will let us know immediately if they are not satisfied. Please humor me; I would like to keep those version requirements even though they are satisfied in all current Fedora versions. > - Add some newlines in the %files section for readability I guess readability is in the eye of the beholder. It seems readable to me as it is (and again matches many other Fedora OCaml spec files). Forgive me, but I wish to keep that as it is as well. Now I feel bad that I'm rejecting all of your advice. But I think maintaining consistency with other OCaml spec files is a good reason.
>Those version requirements come from odoc-parser.opam. The practice of reflecting such version requirements in the BuildRequires is common in Fedora's OCaml packages. The idea is that if we build for various Fedora or EPEL releases, we don't have to check the version requirements every time, because mock/dnf/rpmbuild will let us know immediately if they are not satisfied. Please humor me; I would like to keep those version requirements even though they are satisfied in all current Fedora versions. That's fine! > I guess readability is in the eye of the beholder. It seems readable to me as it is (and again matches many other Fedora OCaml spec files). Forgive me, but I wish to keep that as it is as well. Now I feel bad that I'm rejecting all of your advice. But I think maintaining consistency with other OCaml spec files is a good reason. Sounds like a good idea! And don't worry, I'm just following the guidelines, I understand packagers have different opinions and workflows. :)
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ocaml-odoc-parser
Thank you again, Arthur. This package has been built in Rawhide.