Bug 459902 - Review Request: ocaml-bisect - OCaml code coverage tool
Review Request: ocaml-bisect - OCaml code coverage tool
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Rakesh Pandit
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-08-24 03:58 EDT by Richard W.M. Jones
Modified: 2008-08-25 08:38 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-08-25 08:38:59 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
rpandit: fedora‑review+
kevin: fedora‑cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Richard W.M. Jones 2008-08-24 03:58:26 EDT
Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-bisect.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-bisect-1.0_alpha-1.fc10.src.rpm
Description:
  Bisect is a code coverage tool for the Objective Caml language. It is
  a camlp4-based tool that allows to instrument your application before
  running tests. After application execution, it is possible to generate
  a report in HTML format that is the replica of the application source
  code annotated with code coverage information.

On i386 this package is rpmlint clean.  On x86-64 it gives a warning
about executable stacks (see bug 450551).

$ rpm -q --requires -p /home/rjones/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/ocaml-bisect-1.0_alpha-1.fc10.i386.rpm
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1
libc.so.6  
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)  
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1)  
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.2)  
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2)  
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)  
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)  
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)  
libdl.so.2  
libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.0)  
libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.1)  
libm.so.6  
libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)  
ocaml(Arg) = 03e86a4154064ea900dc32c05f53e364
ocaml(Array) = aa8e3cd5824f9bb40b93fcd38d0c95b5
ocaml(Buffer) = f6cef633ea14963b84b79c4095c63dc3
ocaml(CamlinternalOO) = 6d0d5b328d6db88f403ca4393b4abd38
ocaml(Camlp4) = 1e46a133b8062d1571640f7fa36f32c4
ocaml(Camlp4_config) = cb716b4361f43326c6ad695c7a1bb5c0
ocaml(Camlp4_import) = 0134ca95282ef6821081c0c11802cea0
ocaml(Char) = e98bc9c9e918a84b3c1a5a122d42fac1
ocaml(Digest) = a5dd2d89492338578de12105e88c803f
ocaml(Filename) = 633a1e7f590ff5e95124293dbef3b476
ocaml(Format) = 35fe566f7a37d8991a5c822bd1463949
ocaml(Hashtbl) = 083f2c94b44ff4e0b3220aaea6a783b4
ocaml(Int32) = 711321870c949bd3bbdd092d9bae92e4
ocaml(Int64) = f8f7e2e4c0667ead94596040b12e732d
ocaml(Lexing) = b1793496643444d3762dd42bebe2cfe3
ocaml(List) = da1ce9168f0408ff26158af757456948
ocaml(Nativeint) = e79cdc4d3575c2ed044955cb7ef49aca
ocaml(Obj) = 5cfae708052c692ea39d23ed930fd64d
ocaml(Parsing) = 62cca107e4e88af303516459a87c3e9a
ocaml(Pervasives) = 8ba3d1faa24d659525c9025f41fd0c57
ocaml(Printf) = 5dbbf45a03b54e6dbfcf39178d0d6341
ocaml(Queue) = caa3a209bfc63d23a30f573541a88fec
ocaml(Set) = 7da14e671a035f12386ace3890018ef3
ocaml(Stream) = 21a833e12efd34ea0c87d8d9da959809
ocaml(String) = 2c162ab314b2f0a2cfd22d471b2e21ab
ocaml(Sys) = 0da495f5a80f31899139359805318f28
ocaml(runtime) = 3.10.2

$ rpm -q --provides -p /home/rjones/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/ocaml-bisect-1.0_alpha-1.fc10.i386.rpm
ocaml(Bisect) = 9f7bc6aea60758edb6f97e3a0a529077
ocaml(Instrument) = 4f693f068faf19423105eecb1d71ff12
ocaml-bisect = 1.0_alpha-1.fc10
ocaml-bisect(x86-32) = 1.0_alpha-1.fc10
Comment 1 Rakesh Pandit 2008-08-24 04:27:47 EDT
acceptable Fedora format for naming is %{name}-%{version}-%{release} so I suppose
ocaml-bisect-1.0-0.1.alpha%{?dist} would be okay ?


Build successfully:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=782339

Package looks sane to me, except this issue. May you update and it and in the meantime I run my checklist ?
Comment 2 Richard W.M. Jones 2008-08-24 04:46:34 EDT
Wow, that was quick!  I'm not sure I understood the naming issue
entirely correctly.  Is the following name better?

Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-bisect.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-bisect-1.0-1.alpha.fc10.src.rpm
Comment 3 Rakesh Pandit 2008-08-24 05:01:30 EDT
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#NonNumericRelease

for release field 
Release:        0.1.%{subversion}%{?dist}

will be okay.

1.e ocaml-bisect-1.0-0.1.alpha.fc10.src.rpm

for each bump you can increment <x> in ocaml-bisect-1.0-0.<x>.alpha.fc10.src.rpm
Comment 4 Richard W.M. Jones 2008-08-24 05:14:37 EDT
OK, I think I've got it now.  Try this one:

Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-bisect.spec
SRPM URL:
http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-bisect-1.0-0.1.alpha.fc10.src.rpm
Comment 5 Rakesh Pandit 2008-08-24 05:38:25 EDT
APPROVED

rpmlint is clean except the warning message

I have i686 m/c
[rpmbuild@rocky i386]$ rp ocaml-bisect-1.0_alpha-1.fc9.i386.rpm 
ocaml-bisect.i386: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/bisect-report
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings

warning is being taken care: #450551 You may like to update this bug now!!

[rpmbuild@rocky i386]$ rp ocaml-bisect-devel-1.0_alpha-1.fc9.i386.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

[rpmbuild@rocky SRPMS]$ rp ocaml-bisect-1.0_alpha-1.fc9.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Required:
[x] Name (in accordance with ocaml guidelines)
[x] License -- okay src files have (or later) so GPLv3+ is correct
[x] Spec file is in American Eng and legible
[x] Build successfully
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=782339
[x] BuildRequires 
[x] Duplicate files - nil
[NA] locale
[x] permissions -- okay
[x]  source link correct
[x] packaging guidlines
[x] Buildroot correct
[x] owns every directory it creates
[x] file encoding - checked
[x] package has no dependency on files in %doc
[x] gui
[x] No dependencies outside FHS guidelines
[x] md5sum

[rpmbuild@rocky ocaml]$ md5sum bisect-1.0-alpha.tar.gz 
2285c0af8d0e7503fbd0283a48cba944  bisect-1.0-alpha.tar.gz
[rpmbuild@rocky ocaml]$ md5sum ocaml-bisect-1.0_alpha-1.fc10/bisect-1.0-alpha.tar.gz 
2285c0af8d0e7503fbd0283a48cba944  ocaml-bisect-1.0_alpha-1.fc10/bisect-1.0-alpha.tar.gz

[x] unnecessary files excluded 
[x] native compiler test
[x] devel package contains right files
[x] ocaml guidelines

Optional suggestions:
-Nil-

Key NA = N/A, x = Check, ! = Problem, ? = Not evaluated
Comment 6 Richard W.M. Jones 2008-08-24 06:10:04 EDT
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: ocaml-bisect
Short Description: OCaml code coverage tool
Owners: rjones
Branches: F-9
InitialCC: rjones
Comment 7 Kevin Fenzi 2008-08-24 15:02:08 EDT
cvs done.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.