Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-ounit.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-ounit-1.0.2-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: Unit test framework for OCaml rpmlint reports: ocaml-ounit.i386: E: no-binary ocaml-ounit.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Both can be ignored for OCaml packages. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=593927
I think the license text is almost exactly that of the "Modern Style with sublicense" example from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT. I don't think it's BSD. Any reason you don't run the included tests? A simple "make test" in a %check section seems to work OK. * source files match upstream: 3ab40dfe4202aa83fa0309d1265b30e1acd633fec1ad728e5b463dde07737e13 ounit-1.0.2.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field does not match the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: ocaml-ounit-1.0.2-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm ocaml(OUnit) = 06781756bb7be2785cf39ab7edd5c92b ocaml-ounit = 1.0.2-1.fc9 = ocaml(Arg) = 03e86a4154064ea900dc32c05f53e364 ocaml(Array) = aa8e3cd5824f9bb40b93fcd38d0c95b5 ocaml(Buffer) = f6cef633ea14963b84b79c4095c63dc3 ocaml(Format) = 35fe566f7a37d8991a5c822bd1463949 ocaml(List) = da1ce9168f0408ff26158af757456948 ocaml(Pervasives) = 8ba3d1faa24d659525c9025f41fd0c57 ocaml(Printexc) = 82717999a586ede6925c0aa18d6562ac ocaml(Sys) = 0da495f5a80f31899139359805318f28 ocaml(Unix) = 9a46a8db115947409e54686ada118599 ocaml(runtime) = 3.10.1 ocaml-ounit-devel-1.0.2-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm ocaml-ounit-devel = 1.0.2-1.fc9 = ocaml-ounit = 1.0.2-1.fc9 X %check is not present, but a functional test suite exists. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files (except for the LICENSE file) * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * .cma, .cmi, .so, .so.owner, META files in the main package. * .a, .cmxa, .cmx and .mli files are in the -devel subpackage. * .cmo, .o and .ml files not included
There is a %check section! Unless you mean that the check section is wrong? It seems to work, running the 'make test' rule (and hence tests) during the rpmbuild. Here is an updated package which corrects the license field: Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-ounit.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-ounit-1.0.2-2.fc9.src.rpm * Mon May 12 2008 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones> - 1.0.2-2 - License is MIT.
I have no idea why I didn't see a %check section there. Maybe I was looking at a different specfile. However if you check the scratch build you linked above, you'll see that there's no %check section processed, and if I download the original src.rpm that you posted, the spec there has no %check section. Anyway, rebuilding the -2 src.rpm shows: Ran: 6 tests in: 0.00 seconds. OK so we're good there. APPROVED
Oh dear, possible that I added it and didn't bump the release number. Anyway, it's all good now.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ocaml-ounit Short Description: Unit test framework for OCaml Owners: rjones Branches: F-8 F-9 InitialCC: rjones Cvsextras Commits: yes
cvs done.
Built for F-8/F-9/devel.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ocaml-ounit Short Description: Unit test framework for OCaml Owners: rjones dchen Branches: epel7 el6
Git done (by process-git-requests).