https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
Bug ID: 870522 QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: ocaml-zarith - OCaml interface to GMP Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: loganjerry@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-zarith/ocaml-zarith.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-zarith/ocaml-zarith-1.1-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: This library implements arithmetic and logical operations over arbitrary-precision integers.
The module is simply named "Z". Its interface is similar to that of the Int32, Int64 and Nativeint modules from the OCaml standard library, with some additional functions. See the file z.mlip for documentation.
The implementation uses GMP (the GNU Multiple Precision arithmetic library) to compute over big integers. However, small integers are represented as unboxed Caml integers, to save space and improve performance. Big integers are allocated in the Caml heap, bypassing GMP's memory management and achieving better GC behavior than e.g. the MLGMP library. Computations on small integers use a special, faster path (coded in assembly for some platforms and functions) eschewing calls to GMP, while computations on large integers use the low-level MPN functions from GMP.
Arbitrary-precision integers can be compared correctly using OCaml's polymorphic comparison operators (=, <, >, etc.).
Additional features include: - a module Q for rationals, built on top of Z (see q.mli) - a compatibility layer Big_int_Z that implements the same API as Big_int, but uses Z internally Fedora Account System Username: jjames
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
Ivan Romanov drizt@land.ru changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |drizt@land.ru
--- Comment #1 from Ivan Romanov drizt@land.ru --- Drop BR ocaml (ocaml-ocamldoc will pull it when building) Ise %{?_isa} for devel subpackage https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#... static library must be in static subpackage https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Thanks for the comments, Ivan.
(In reply to comment #1)
Drop BR ocaml (ocaml-ocamldoc will pull it when building)
It is redundant, true, but I prefer to keep that particular BR since this is an ocaml package, so having an explicit BR on the package that provides the compiler and runtime seems like a good thing to me.
Ise %{?_isa} for devel subpackage https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/ Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
Good catch. I have fixed this.
static library must be in static subpackage https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/ Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
Except for the case of OCaml packages. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml, and the section entitled "-devel subpackage" in particular.
New URLs: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-zarith/ocaml-zarith.spec http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-zarith/ocaml-zarith-1.1-2.fc19.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
--- Comment #3 from Ivan Romanov drizt@land.ru --- I can make a review for your package. Can you take my package review process? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871037 librcc - RusXMMS Charset Conversion Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |872020
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Sure, I'm happy to swap reviews. Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
Ivan Romanov drizt@land.ru changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
--- Comment #5 from Ivan Romanov drizt@land.ru --- It's weird for me ocaml-zarith doesn't provide debuginfo package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
--- Comment #6 from Ivan Romanov drizt@land.ru --- Group is unspecified.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
--- Comment #7 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #5)
It's weird for me ocaml-zarith doesn't provide debuginfo package.
No OCaml package does. Our toolchain can't handle OCaml source files yet, even though the OCaml compiler does produce usable debug information with version 4.00.0 and later. I hope we can have debuginfo packages in the not-too-distant future, but right now it isn't possible.
(In reply to comment #6)
Group is unspecified.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
--- Comment #8 from Ivan Romanov drizt@land.ru --- I've looked at fedora ocaml-* packages. They use Group: Development/Libraries for both main and devel subpackage. Furthemore you can look at https://fedoraproject.org/w/uploads/5/5c/Packaging_OCaml_ocaml-foolib.spec it has Group too. So you should to use such group too.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
--- Comment #9 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Lots of packages and wiki examples still have Group tags from the days when they were still used. The Group tag is no longer used. It has been replaced by comps; see https://fedorahosted.org/comps/.
This is the official Fedora policy on the Group tag: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag. My package is in compliance with that policy.
Please take ownership of this bug. Up at the top, where it says: "Assigned To: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it (edit) (take)", click on the "(take)". Also, set the status below as "Assigned". See step 3 of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
Ivan Romanov drizt@land.ru changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
--- Comment #10 from Ivan Romanov drizt@land.ru --- So. I think that using of Group tag it is an extra advantage. It will usefule for somebody who uses rpm -qi and looks at Group. Unspecified will confuse him. So it's a good practice to always fill the tag. But the tag is really optional. And I can't block review by this reason. So in the near time you will get a full review for the package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
Ivan Romanov drizt@land.ru changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Ivan Romanov drizt@land.ru ---
Package Review ==============
Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [-]: Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. Note: ocaml-zarith-devel-1.1-2.fc19.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/ocaml/zarith/libzarith.a ocaml-zarith-devel-1.1-2.fc19.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/ocaml/zarith/zarith.a It's OK because ocaml packages have exception
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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/taurus/870522-Packaging_OCaml_ocaml-foolib/srpm /review-ocaml-zarith/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. no -debuginfo package because it's impossible to get this for ocaml packages ===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [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) [-]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (zarith-1.1.tgz) It's Ok for ocaml packages because ocaml libraries must be prefixed with ocaml- [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint ------- Checking: ocaml-zarith-1.1-2.fc19.i686.rpm ocaml-zarith-1.1-2.fc19.src.rpm ocaml-zarith-devel-1.1-2.fc19.i686.rpm ocaml-zarith.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mlip -> lip, limp, slip ocaml-zarith.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unboxed -> unbowed, unbounded ocaml-zarith.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mli -> mil, ml, mi ocaml-zarith.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mlip -> lip, limp, slip ocaml-zarith.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unboxed -> unbowed, unbounded ocaml-zarith.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mli -> mil, ml, mi ocaml-zarith.src:61: W: configure-without-libdir-spec 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint ocaml-zarith ocaml-zarith-devel ocaml-zarith.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mlip -> lip, limp, slip ocaml-zarith.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unboxed -> unbowed, unbounded ocaml-zarith.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mli -> mil, ml, mi 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- ocaml-zarith-1.1-2.fc19.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libc.so.6 libgmp.so.10 ocaml(Buffer) = 3f6c994721573c9f8b5411e6824249f4 ocaml(Callback) = 6fd6d47b2f6a171a493621bc5edbfb32 ocaml(Format) = 6e6b7b75c544ef4ca673a763aec805af ocaml(Pervasives) = 4836c254f0eacad92fbf67abc525fdda ocaml(String) = 54ba2685e6ed154753718e9c8becb28b ocaml(Z) = b27d0f2445fc2d3f044189fa31b0f57e ocaml(runtime) = 4.00.1 rtld(GNU_HASH)
ocaml-zarith-devel-1.1-2.fc19.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
ocaml-zarith(x86-32) = 1.1-2.fc19
Provides -------- ocaml-zarith-1.1-2.fc19.i686.rpm:
dllzarith.so ocaml(Big_int_Z) = f150ff948d48683a97c88495b008ffc3 ocaml(Q) = d92b4e11b932f950c4cd6f400316fd95 ocaml(Z) = b27d0f2445fc2d3f044189fa31b0f57e ocaml-zarith = 1.1-2.fc19 ocaml-zarith(x86-32) = 1.1-2.fc19 zarith.cmxs
ocaml-zarith-devel-1.1-2.fc19.i686.rpm:
ocaml-zarith-devel = 1.1-2.fc19 ocaml-zarith-devel(x86-32) = 1.1-2.fc19
Unversioned so-files -------------------- ocaml-zarith-1.1-2.fc19.i686.rpm: /usr/lib/ocaml/stublibs/dllzarith.so
MD5-sum check ------------- http://forge.ocamlcore.org/frs/download.php/835/zarith-1.1.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a0ba322c8d4f5bffa43f1c571e839baa0c7b155b67630bbd8481df21eb636b6e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a0ba322c8d4f5bffa43f1c571e839baa0c7b155b67630bbd8481df21eb636b6e
Generated by fedora-review 0.3.0 (c78e275) last change: 2012-09-24 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n ocaml-zarith-1.1-2.fc19
=================== PACKAGE APPROVED ==============================
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rjones@redhat.com
--- Comment #12 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com --- Rightly or wrongly, I've been deleting the Group tag from RPM spec files as often as I can.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #13 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review, Ivan.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ocaml-zarith Short Description: OCaml interface to GMP Owners: jjames Branches: f18 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
--- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Ivan, please take ownership of review BZs, thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
Ivan Romanov drizt@land.ru changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |drizt@land.ru
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ocaml-zarith-1.1-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ocaml-zarith-1.1-2.fc18
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ocaml-zarith-1.1-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-12-20 10:06:00
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ocaml-zarith-1.1-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla