Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-stdlib-random/ocaml-stdlib-random.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-stdlib-random/ocaml-stdlib-random-1.1.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: The stdlib-random package provides a stable and compiler-independent implementation of all the PRNGs used in the Random module. Those PRNGs are available in the various libraries: - stdlib-random.v3: OCaml 3.07 to 3.11 PRNG - stdlib-random.v4: OCaml 3.12 to 4.14 PRNG - stdlib-random.v5: current OCaml 5.0 PRNG - stdlib-random.v5o: pure OCaml version of the OCaml 5 PRNG All those libraries can be used together and the signature of their Random$n module has been extended to the latest signature whenever possible.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6509463 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2242905-ocaml-stdlib-random/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06509463-ocaml-stdlib-random/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: 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 fine as they are regular OCaml objects. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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: Cannot run licensecheck: Command 'licensecheck -r /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/stdlib- random-1.1.0' returned non-zero exit status 255. Checked manually. [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 [-]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 2473 bytes in 2 files. [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. I did not test it, but looked at the source code and it's just a simple library. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. No signatures upstream. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ocaml-stdlib-random-1.1.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ocaml-stdlib-random-devel-1.1.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ocaml-stdlib-random-debuginfo-1.1.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ocaml-stdlib-random-debugsource-1.1.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ocaml-stdlib-random-1.1.0-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp4p47_fs_')] checks: 31, packages: 5 ocaml-stdlib-random-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ocaml/stdlib-random/v3/random3.a ocaml-stdlib-random-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ocaml/stdlib-random/v4/random4.a ocaml-stdlib-random-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ocaml/stdlib-random/v5/librandom5_stubs.a ocaml-stdlib-random-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ocaml/stdlib-random/v5/random5.a ocaml-stdlib-random-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ocaml/stdlib-random/v5o/random5o.a ocaml-stdlib-random.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/ocaml/stdlib-random/v3/random3.cmxs ocaml-stdlib-random.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/ocaml/stdlib-random/v4/random4.cmxs ocaml-stdlib-random.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/ocaml/stdlib-random/v5/random5.cmxs ocaml-stdlib-random.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/ocaml/stdlib-random/v5o/random5o.cmxs ocaml-stdlib-random.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/ocaml/stublibs/dllrandom5_stubs.so These are all normal OCaml objects. ocaml-stdlib-random-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation There is documentation in the *.mli files. ocaml-stdlib-random-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/ocaml/stdlib-random/v5o/random5o.mli /usr/lib64/ocaml/stdlib-random/v5/random5.mli I checked this one by hand, and while it is weird, it's still correct and just a coincidence that the two modules have precisely the same interface (including documentation). Not sure what if anything we need to do about this. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ocaml-stdlib-random-debuginfo-1.1.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpq9q6oqpi')] checks: 31, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 4 ocaml-stdlib-random-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ocaml/stdlib-random/v3/random3.a ocaml-stdlib-random-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ocaml/stdlib-random/v4/random4.a ocaml-stdlib-random-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ocaml/stdlib-random/v5/librandom5_stubs.a ocaml-stdlib-random-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ocaml/stdlib-random/v5/random5.a ocaml-stdlib-random-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ocaml/stdlib-random/v5o/random5o.a ocaml-stdlib-random.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/ocaml/stdlib-random/v3/random3.cmxs ocaml-stdlib-random.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/ocaml/stdlib-random/v4/random4.cmxs ocaml-stdlib-random.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/ocaml/stdlib-random/v5/random5.cmxs ocaml-stdlib-random.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/ocaml/stdlib-random/v5o/random5o.cmxs ocaml-stdlib-random.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/ocaml/stublibs/dllrandom5_stubs.so ocaml-stdlib-random-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ocaml-stdlib-random-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/ocaml/stdlib-random/v5o/random5o.mli /usr/lib64/ocaml/stdlib-random/v5/random5.mli (See my same comments above) Unversioned so-files -------------------- ocaml-stdlib-random: /usr/lib64/ocaml/stublibs/dllrandom5_stubs.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ocaml/stdlib-random/releases/download/1.1.0/stdlib-random-1.1.0.tbz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8b930182fe680b8b96ad1e082b87a17c8011d95a670f557c703035f04f812559 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8b930182fe680b8b96ad1e082b87a17c8011d95a670f557c703035f04f812559 Requires -------- ocaml-stdlib-random (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml(CamlinternalFormatBasics) ocaml(Random5o__) ocaml(Random5o__Prng) ocaml(Stdlib) ocaml(Stdlib__Array) ocaml(Stdlib__Bigarray) ocaml(Stdlib__Bytes) ocaml(Stdlib__Char) ocaml(Stdlib__Complex) ocaml(Stdlib__Digest) ocaml(Stdlib__Domain) ocaml(Stdlib__Either) ocaml(Stdlib__Int) ocaml(Stdlib__Int32) ocaml(Stdlib__Int64) ocaml(Stdlib__Nativeint) ocaml(Stdlib__Seq) ocaml(Stdlib__String) ocaml(Stdlib__Sys) ocaml(Stdlib__Uchar) rtld(GNU_HASH) ocaml-stdlib-random-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml(CamlinternalFormatBasics) ocaml(Random5o__) ocaml(Random5o__Prng) ocaml(Stdlib) ocaml(Stdlib__Array) ocaml(Stdlib__Bigarray) ocaml(Stdlib__Bytes) ocaml(Stdlib__Char) ocaml(Stdlib__Complex) ocaml(Stdlib__Digest) ocaml(Stdlib__Domain) ocaml(Stdlib__Either) ocaml(Stdlib__Int) ocaml(Stdlib__Int32) ocaml(Stdlib__Int64) ocaml(Stdlib__Nativeint) ocaml(Stdlib__Seq) ocaml(Stdlib__String) ocaml(Stdlib__Sys) ocaml(Stdlib__Uchar) ocaml-stdlib-random(x86-64) ocamlx(Random5o__Prng) ocamlx(Stdlib) ocamlx(Stdlib__Array) ocamlx(Stdlib__Bigarray) ocamlx(Stdlib__Bytes) ocamlx(Stdlib__Digest) ocamlx(Stdlib__Domain) ocamlx(Stdlib__Int) ocamlx(Stdlib__Int32) ocamlx(Stdlib__Int64) ocamlx(Stdlib__Nativeint) ocamlx(Stdlib__String) ocamlx(Stdlib__Sys) ocaml-stdlib-random-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml-stdlib-random-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- ocaml-stdlib-random: ocaml(Random3) ocaml(Random4) ocaml(Random5) ocaml(Random5o) ocaml(Random5o__) ocaml(Random5o__Prng) ocaml-stdlib-random ocaml-stdlib-random(x86-64) ocaml-stdlib-random-devel: ocaml(Random3) ocaml(Random4) ocaml(Random5) ocaml(Random5o) ocaml(Random5o__) ocaml(Random5o__Prng) ocaml-stdlib-random-devel ocaml-stdlib-random-devel(x86-64) ocamlx(Random3) ocamlx(Random4) ocamlx(Random5) ocamlx(Random5o) ocamlx(Random5o__) ocamlx(Random5o__Prng) ocaml-stdlib-random-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) ocaml-stdlib-random-debuginfo ocaml-stdlib-random-debuginfo(x86-64) ocaml-stdlib-random-debugsource: ocaml-stdlib-random-debugsource ocaml-stdlib-random-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2242905 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Ocaml, C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, Python, SugarActivity, PHP, Haskell, fonts, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
There's a strange thing that two of the *.mli files are coincidentally completely identical and rpmlint complains about that. However I don't believe it is a genuine issue. ************* Package reviewed & approved by rjones *************
(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #3) > There's a strange thing that two of the *.mli files are > coincidentally completely identical and rpmlint complains > about that. However I don't believe it is a genuine issue. It makes sense that those two files are identical. They are the interface files for two variants of the OCaml 5 PRNG. While they have different implementations, their interfaces are the same. I could hardlink those two files I suppose.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ocaml-stdlib-random
FEDORA-2023-5ef871fa11 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-5ef871fa11
FEDORA-2023-5ef871fa11 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.