https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391 Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr(a)sylvestre.me&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1055396 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055396 [Bug 1055396] Review Request: ocaml-yojson - An optimized parsing and printing library for the JSON format -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James <loganjerry(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Issues, in no particular order: 1) These lines at the top of the spec file: %global debug_package %{nil} %global _use_internal_dependency_generator 0 %global __find_requires /usr/lib/rpm/ocaml-find-requires.sh %global __find_provides /usr/lib/rpm/ocaml-find-provides.sh should all be removed. The first is not necessary starting in Fedora 19, and was actively removed from ocaml packages in Fedora 20 (see https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-September/189247.html). The last three lines have not been needed for a very long time; I don't remember now when they became unnecessary, but it was prior to Fedora 19. Also, the strip invocation in %install should be removed, and we need to figure out how to add -g to the compiler flags, probably with something like this in %prep: sed -i 's/ocamlopt/ocamlopt -g/;s/ocamlc \(-[co]\)/ocamlc -g \1/' Makefile 2) The build seems to need ocaml-findlib only, not ocaml-findlib-devel; i.e., the ocamlfind tool is used, but I don't see any use of the ocaml-findlib library in the source code. 3) Not all architectures support ocaml. Add this to your spec file: ExclusiveArch: %{ocaml_arches} 4) There is no need to build the bytecode version for architectures that support native code. I suggest changing the make invocation to this, without the leading "make": %if %opt make %{?_smp_mflags} opt %else make %{?_smp_mflags} %endif 5) Since the packages are arch-specific, the dependency from the -devel subpackage to the main package should include %{?_isa}. 6) Consider adding a %check section. The "make test" invocation just creates output files without checking them for correctness, so that's not sufficient, unless you are just testing for crashes, or the like. There may not be a reasonable test to run. I will leave this to your disgression. 7) The description contains two British English spellings, as noted by the spell checker (see below). American English uses only one 'l' where British English uses two in "modeled" and "labeled". 8) The line: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at the top of %install is not needed in Fedora. The versions of RPM in all supported Fedora releases do this already. (If you are thinking of building the package for EPEL, that's another story.) 9) Rpmlint complains about %define libname. I understand that you can't use %global at that location, since %{name} hasn't been defined yet. One solution to that is to use %global, but move the definition farther down in the spec file, perhaps just above %description. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. The flags are missing -g; see issue #1 above. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. See the spell checker's output below. American English uses only one 'l' where British English uses two: "modeled" and "labeled". See issue #7 above. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. See issue #1 above. [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. This is missing. See issue #3 above. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Ocaml: [x]: This should never happen ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. Admittedly, there is almost no scope for parallel building, but can this be added without causing build errors? [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ocaml-easy- format-devel Since the packages are arch-specific, please add the %{?_isa} part. See issue #5 above. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. See issue #6 above. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define libname %(echo %{name} | sed -e 's/^ocaml-//') See issue #9 above. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ocaml-easy-format-1.0.2-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm ocaml-easy-format-devel-1.0.2-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm ocaml-easy-format-1.0.2-1.fc21.src.rpm ocaml-easy-format.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US modelled -> modeled, model led, model-led ocaml-easy-format.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US labelled -> labeled, la belled, la-belled ocaml-easy-format.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US modelled -> modeled, model led, model-led ocaml-easy-format.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US labelled -> labeled, la belled, la-belled 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint ocaml-easy-format-devel ocaml-easy-format ocaml-easy-format.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US modelled -> modeled, model led, model-led ocaml-easy-format.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US labelled -> labeled, la belled, la-belled 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- ocaml-easy-format-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml-easy-format ocaml-easy-format (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml(Buffer) ocaml(Format) ocaml(Hashtbl) ocaml(Int32) ocaml(List) ocaml(Obj) ocaml(Pervasives) ocaml(Printf) ocaml(String) ocaml(runtime) Provides -------- ocaml-easy-format-devel: ocaml-easy-format-devel ocaml-easy-format-devel(x86-64) ocaml-easy-format: ocaml(Easy_format) ocaml-easy-format ocaml-easy-format(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://mjambon.com/releases/easy-format/easy-format-1.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f1e763a3b5962b87698786f5e1e17e46311106dc76fd2e2ef822cd8df37d941f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f1e763a3b5962b87698786f5e1e17e46311106dc76fd2e2ef822cd8df37d941f Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1055391 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Ocaml Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391 --- Comment #4 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr(a)sylvestre.me&gt; --- Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/ocaml/ocaml-easy-format.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/ocaml/ocaml-easy-format-1.0.2-2.fc2... ✗ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-20-x86_64-oef/result/ocaml-easy-format-*.x86_64.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Review feedback incorporated, details below: (In reply to Jerry James from comment #2) Aha, thanks! As it turns out the debug_package nullification is still needed when ocamlopt is not present (tested by overriding opt to 0) so I've if-guarded it. That line works, thanks. As for the dependency generator, wow, someone needs to update those templates. Yes, works fine once I depended only on ocaml-findlib. Added I've modified it since upstream's Makefile is a bit unusual (the default target invoked 'all' and 'opt' -- the latter is a no-op that just creates a marker to tell make install to copy additional files). so the non-optimizing case just calls make all (this way, I can test building non-ocamlopt builds even on my x86_64 mock environment) Added (again, the newspec template... sigh) I'm using upstream's test suite for now, even though it's incomplete. Fixed Fixed Good idea, thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391 Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr(a)sylvestre.me&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr(a)sylvestre.me&gt; --- Thank you very much for reviewing. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ocaml-easy-format Short Description: High-level and functional interface to the Format module Owners: salimma Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- ocaml-easy-format-1.0.2-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ocaml-easy-format-1.0.2-2.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- ocaml-easy-format-1.0.2-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|ocaml-easy-format-1.0.2-2.f |ocaml-easy-format-1.0.2-2.f |c19 |c20 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- ocaml-easy-format-1.0.2-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com&gt; --- WARNING: Requested package name ocaml-cppo doesn't match bug summary ocaml-easy-format -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component