Spec URL: http://www.phy.duke.edu/~amd34/mlgmpidl/ocaml-mlgmpidl.spec SRPM URL: http://www.phy.duke.edu/~amd34/mlgmpidl/ocaml-mlgmpidl-1.0-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: OCaml interface to GMP and MPFR libraries MLGMPIDL is an OCaml interface to the GMP and MPFR rational and real number math libraries. Although there is another such interface, this one is different in that it provides a more imperative (rather than functional) interface to conserve memory and that this one uses CAMLIDL to take care of the C/OCaml interface in a convenient and modular way. I have tested this package in F-10. It builds on Koji (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1214252). The rpmlint output is as follows: ocaml-mlgmpidl.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/gmptop ocaml-mlgmpidl.i386: W: ocaml-mixed-executable /usr/bin/gmptop ocaml-mlgmpidl.i386: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/prelink.conf.d/ocaml-mlgmpidl-prelink.conf ocaml-mlgmpidl-devel.i386: W: no-documentation I am under the impression that the first three are ok: gmptop is an OCaml toplevel with the library's capabilities built in. If desired, I can include some form of stub documentation for ocaml-mlgmpidl-devel, but there is a doc package that has the program documentation. I would also appreciate comments on whether I should be going back and modifying the package's makefile to attempt to build libgmp_caml.a as a shared object - I believe this would be necessary to allow gmp.cma to be loaded dynamically.
Koji scratch-build in Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1257820 /usr/bin/gmptop is an OCaml toplevel, but is protected from being damaged by prelink .. Good. $ hexdump -C /usr/bin/gmptop | tail -3 00239d20 00 0e 23 44 42 55 47 00 0d 2c 9f 00 00 00 06 43 |..#DBUG..,.....C| 00239d30 61 6d 6c 31 39 39 39 58 30 30 38 |aml1999X008| 00239d3b > I would also appreciate comments on whether I should be going back and > modifying the package's makefile to attempt to build libgmp_caml.a as a shared > object - I believe this would be necessary to allow gmp.cma to be loaded > dynamically. I have no idea about this, but it shouldn't affect the review.
+ rpmlint output rpmlint output all looks fine, and the things it notices can be ignored. + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora + license matches the actual package license LGPLv2 (not +) + %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm 63ec244511e58bd1cbf5513dc7aaad8e 169186 + package successfully builds on at least one architecture n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires list all build dependencies n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* + binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun + does not use Prefix: /usr - package owns all directories it creates Package should own %{my_ocaml_lib_dir}. Then %files should add %exclude lines for everything in -devel. See the example: http://fedoraproject.org/w/uploads/5/5c/Packaging_OCaml_ocaml-foolib.spec + no duplicate files in %files + %defattr line + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content + large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + files marked %doc should not affect package n/a header files should be in -devel n/a static libraries should be in -static n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel + -devel must require the fully versioned base n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc. + filenames must be valid UTF-8 Optional: n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available + reviewer should build the package in mock + the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures - review should test the package functions as described n/a scriptlets should be sane n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin ------------ Please fix the directory ownership issue.
Should be fixed now in files at the same location (though in this case, unlike in the example, %{my_ocaml_lib_dir}/*.a should be excluded from main and put into devel in not just opt build due to libgmp_caml.a) (In reply to comment #2) > + rpmlint output > > rpmlint output all looks fine, and the things it notices > can be ignored. > > + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines > + specfile name matches the package base name > + package should satisfy packaging guidelines > + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora > + license matches the actual package license > LGPLv2 (not +) > + %doc includes license file > + spec file written in American English > + spec file is legible > + upstream sources match sources in the srpm > 63ec244511e58bd1cbf5513dc7aaad8e 169186 > + package successfully builds on at least one architecture > n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed > + BuildRequires list all build dependencies > n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* > + binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun > + does not use Prefix: /usr > - package owns all directories it creates > > Package should own %{my_ocaml_lib_dir}. > Then %files should add %exclude lines for everything in -devel. > See the example: > http://fedoraproject.org/w/uploads/5/5c/Packaging_OCaml_ocaml-foolib.spec > > + no duplicate files in %files > + %defattr line > + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > + consistent use of macros > + package must contain code or permissible content > + large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage > + files marked %doc should not affect package > n/a header files should be in -devel > n/a static libraries should be in -static > n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' > n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel > + -devel must require the fully versioned base > n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files > n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file > + packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages > + %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc. > + filenames must be valid UTF-8 > > Optional: > > n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream > n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if > available > + reviewer should build the package in mock > + the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures > - review should test the package functions as described > n/a scriptlets should be sane > n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel > + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or > /usr/sbin > > ------------ > > Please fix the directory ownership issue.
OK that fixes the problem. ---------------------------------- This package is APPROVED by rjones ----------------------------------
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ocaml-mlgmpidl Short Description: OCaml interface to GMP and MPFR libraries Owners: amdunn Branches: F-9 F-10
cvs done.
ocaml-mlgmpidl-1.0-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ocaml-mlgmpidl-1.0-1.fc10
ocaml-mlgmpidl-1.0-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ocaml-mlgmpidl-1.0-1.fc9
ocaml-mlgmpidl-1.0-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
ocaml-mlgmpidl-1.0-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.