Bug 528461 (ocaml-fieldslib) - Review Request: ocaml-fieldslib - OCaml library for folding over record fields
Summary: Review Request: ocaml-fieldslib - OCaml library for folding over record fields
Alias: ocaml-fieldslib
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jason Tibbitts
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: ocaml-janest-core
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2009-10-12 10:39 UTC by Richard W.M. Jones
Modified: 2012-05-09 19:30 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2012-05-09 19:30:59 UTC
Type: ---
j: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Richard W.M. Jones 2009-10-12 10:39:38 UTC
Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-fieldslib.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-fieldslib-0.1.0-1.fc11.src.rpm

This is an OCaml library and syntax extension that can be used to
define first class values representing record fields, and additional
routines, to get and set record fields, iterate and fold over all
fields of a record and create new record values.

Comment 1 Richard W.M. Jones 2009-10-12 10:40:35 UTC
rpmlint says:

ocaml-fieldslib.x86_64: E: no-binary

 - This is OK for OCaml packages, at least until we start to build
   the main package as noarch and the subpackage as arch-specific.

Comment 2 Richard W.M. Jones 2009-10-12 10:47:46 UTC
Oops, missing BR on camlp4.

Updated package:

Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-fieldslib.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-fieldslib-0.1.0-2.fc11.src.rpm

Koji scratch build of the updated package:


Comment 3 Jason Tibbitts 2010-11-02 00:30:13 UTC
Builds fine and rpmlint has only the expected no-binary complaint.

As expected for a review ticket this old, there are some lines in the spec which are unneeded on modern Fedora (BuildRoot:, cleaning of buildroot in %install, and for F13+ the entire %clean section).  I suggest removing them unless you're targeting EPEL.

There's a test.ml in the sample directory; it doesn't seem to do much, but it does get built as part of the regular build which I guess implies that at least the syntax extension builds.  I don't suppose it would do much good to run it somewhere, though.

The LICENSE file is unnecessarily duplicated, but meh.

This is a syntax extension, so the .cmo file should be OK in the main package.

Looks good enough to me.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
* 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.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint has only acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   ocaml(Fieldslib) = 6166d2ad0c577e8e7dd95f48377278fc
   ocaml(Pa_fields_conv) = bb52643b3d15a0f4be959a2e45d53683
   ocaml-fieldslib = 0.1.0-2.fc15
   ocaml-fieldslib(x86-64) = 0.1.0-2.fc15
   ocaml(Arg) = b6513be035dc9c8a458c189cd8841700
   ocaml(Array) = 9c9fa5f11e2d6992c427dde4d1168489
   ocaml(Buffer) = 0ce5de86183a833ed112488a1e6d281d
   ocaml(Camlp4) = bb930f7c2bed5d057c794fe07dc8596a
   ocaml(Camlp4_config) = 80b5d58834366711574a5ec4dfb123fd
   ocaml(Camlp4_import) = 4d17b58763ba1f0aac92fd5dbb558b59
   ocaml(Char) = 3da72249626c7db769beafc97036cb4f
   ocaml(Filename) = 9d7d89d76fb7c750cebd9ea5578bba67
   ocaml(Format) = 294246d2bcc3b8adc89bd48bff122c7e
   ocaml(Hashtbl) = ee2a3220e38a4350c5bc131ce9f3f6ce
   ocaml(Int32) = b2545c419b6b6a173cac4c0a3e7e0277
   ocaml(Int64) = d501d6e89fdce41c79f274fb464995d5
   ocaml(Lexing) = 4d17267334f1a6c75730dc3fae21fb9b
   ocaml(List) = a0e2e49d266ff302f8667651a43f71ba
   ocaml(ListLabels) = 2c45a4e52fd403ad1dcf75f09e4cac27
   ocaml(Nativeint) = 7233ce5207a538fea4f0c61ed411ea2c
   ocaml(Obj) = 57b3fe2fcfe45ee25709b8ae556264d1
   ocaml(Parsing) = 29c3f123280f8e6e639cfb025b3c9a3f
   ocaml(Pa_type_conv) = 917c39ac24d30438f1e78e6e58840e45
   ocaml(Pervasives) = 88cb1505c8bdf9a4dcd2cdf3452732b4
   ocaml(Printf) = 807ecd3a1538992580464c03462c9964
   ocaml(Queue) = 56b5e04dcda600ae0cdf49a37f17fcd9
   ocaml(Set) = c4be5d24d30c129dd60d2739e54db7dd
   ocaml(Stream) = 91a43ea7fb16bf36f3f10c0dc7d08a0e
   ocaml(String) = ecc403546c1c50056801131811c39017
   ocaml(Sys) = 21bf525b2b3f3a46a54b96163adfe387
   ocaml(runtime) = 3.11.2

   ocaml-fieldslib-devel = 0.1.0-2.fc15
   ocaml-fieldslib-devel(x86-64) = 0.1.0-2.fc15
   ocaml-fieldslib = 0.1.0-2.fc15

* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* 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.


Comment 4 Jason Tibbitts 2010-11-16 19:43:02 UTC
Did you want to move forward with this?  I know it sat in the queue for a while, and if you no longer wish to continue with the package then feel free to just close this ticket.

Comment 5 Richard W.M. Jones 2010-11-16 23:05:27 UTC
Yeah sorry I meant to, but then obviously I didn't.  Give me a little
longer.  This package is important for a Fedora 15 proposed feature ...

Comment 6 Jason Tibbitts 2010-11-16 23:40:15 UTC
No problem; just making sure it didn't fall through the cracks (again).

Comment 7 Jason Tibbitts 2010-12-22 17:37:03 UTC
It's been another month (and then some); any progress?

Comment 8 Richard W.M. Jones 2010-12-22 17:44:42 UTC
This is going to happen really really soon.  I am going to
update OCaml to 3.12 for:
and add a bunch more packages.

Comment 9 Jason Tibbitts 2012-05-09 18:59:55 UTC
So I guess it's been something near a year and a half since the last comment here, and this is still open in my bug list which I'm trying to trim.  Can I just close this out, or is there any chance of it moving forward?

Comment 10 Richard W.M. Jones 2012-05-09 19:30:59 UTC
OK let's close this, since obviously I didn't get around
to packaging it ...

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