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 Description: 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.
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.
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: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1741734
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: bd999bebadd344c83928ef2cddb65112587d808143a3f38736c994bf0b12ade6 fieldslib-0.1.0.tgz * 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-0.1.0-2.fc15.x86_64.rpm 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.x86_64.rpm 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. APPROVED
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.
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 ...
No problem; just making sure it didn't fall through the cracks (again).
It's been another month (and then some); any progress?
This is going to happen really really soon. I am going to update OCaml to 3.12 for: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/OCaml3.12 and add a bunch more packages.
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?
OK let's close this, since obviously I didn't get around to packaging it ...