Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 240571
Review Request: ocaml-calendar - Objective CAML library for managing dates and times
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:12:04 EST
Spec URL: http://annexia.org/tmp/ocaml-calendar.spec SRPM URL: http://annexia.org/tmp/ocaml-calendar-1.10-1.src.rpm Description: This is a Fedora package for Julien Signole's OCaml calendar library.
Updated SRPM and spec file: http://annexia.org/tmp/ocaml-calendar.spec http://annexia.org/tmp/ocaml-calendar-1.10-2.fc6.src.rpm Note! These depend on the ocaml find-requires and find-provides scripts. See here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-May/msg01693.html
Updated SRPM and spec file: http://annexia.org/tmp/ocaml-calendar.spec http://annexia.org/tmp/ocaml-calendar-1.10-3.src.rpm This version removes a Debian patch to handle DISTDIR, which is not actually necessary.
Updated SRPM and spec file: http://annexia.org/tmp/ocaml-calendar.spec http://annexia.org/tmp/ocaml-calendar-1.10-4.src.rpm These handle bytecode-only architectures.
Updated SRPM and spec file: http://annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-calendar.spec http://annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-calendar-1.10-5.src.rpm Updated to latest OCaml packaging guidelines. Built against OCaml 3.10.
Looks like this has a dependency on some other ocaml package which is not in the distro. Could you set the dependencies on these bugs so that poor reviewers like me will know where to start?
I've added the dep on findlib (bug 240557). Note that findlib requires ocaml 3.10.0 from http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/tmp/ (see bug 239004).
=== REQUIRED ITEMS === [ OK ] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ OK ] Spec file name must match the base package. [ OK ] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [ OK ] Package successfully to build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [ CHECK ] Tested on: Mock i3864 [F-devel] [ OK ] Package is not relocatable. [ OK ] Buildroot is correct [ OK ] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license. [ FAILED ] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [ OK ] License type: LGPLv2 [ FAILED ] The source package includes the text of the license(s). [ OK ] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ SKIP ] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [ OK ] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. [ OK ] The spec file handles locales properly. [ SKIP ] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [ Ok ] Package must own all directories that it creates. [ OK ] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ OK ] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [ OK ] Permissions on files are set properly. [ OK ] Package has a %clean section. [ OK ] Package consistently uses macros. [ OK ] Package contains code, or permissable content. [ SKIP ] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [ CHECK ] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ SKIP] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [ SKIP ] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [ SKIP ] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [ SKIP ] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [ CHECK ] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [ OK ] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [ SKIP ] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file. [ OK ] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. According to OCaml Packaging Guideline: [ OK ] OCaml modules / libs should be named ocaml-foo. [ OK ] The spec file should still build bytecode libraries and binaries. [ OK ] Should Test if the native compiler is present. [ OK ] main package should contain files matching all files which're mentioned in OCaml guideline if present. [ OK ] -devel sub-package Should contains all files which're mentioned in OCaml guidelines if present. [ CHECK ] rpmlint output: * On -devel & srpm packages: silent. * On main package: W: ocaml-calendar devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ocaml/calendar/date.cmi W: ocaml-calendar devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ocaml/calendar/printer.cmi W: ocaml-calendar devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ocaml/calendar/calendar.cmi W: ocaml-calendar devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ocaml/calendar/time_Zone.cmi W: ocaml-calendar devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ocaml/calendar/period.cmi W: ocaml-calendar devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ocaml/calendar/time.cmi E: ocaml-calendar no-binary E: ocaml-calendar only-non-binary-in-usr-lib === ISSUES === # License - Well, as we know that the license policy has been changed since few days see -devel list. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-August/msg00108.html And your package is LGPLv2 licensed, You have to use "LGPLv2" in license field instead. # rpmlint output on main package: - According to the OCaml pacjaging guidelines, those error/warning can be ignored. # Documents: - Please add the following: LGPL COPYING calendarFAQ-2.6.txt Also doc directory
http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-calendar.spec http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-calendar-1.10-6.fc8.src.rpm Those should fix all of the problems mentioned in comment 7. * Tue Aug 7 2007 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com> - 1.10-6 - ExcludeArch ppc64 - Clarify license is LGPLv2 - Add LGPL, COPYING, calendarFAQ-2.6.txt and doc/ subdirectory to docs. - BR +ocaml-ocamldoc
Rebuilt & tested, All issues has been fixed. ========== *APPROVED* ==========
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ocaml-calendar Short Description: Objective CAML library for managing dates and times Owners: rjones@redhat.com Branches: F-7 InitialCC: rjones@redhat.com,lxtnow@gmail.com
cvs done.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=95339
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: ocaml-calendar New Branches: EL-5