I've started a page for updating the packaging guidelines. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml At the moment it's a straight copy of the packaging guidelines except that I've updated 'ocaml-foolib.spec' from my private copy of that file. Some ideas: - how useful is the whole '%opt' stuff now that we have native compilation on every Fedora architecture? - use of chrpath and strip - should we finally distribute ocaml-find-requires/provides with upstream RPM? They haven't changed in a long time. - note about some common rpmlint errors: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433783 - ISO-8859-1 - should we ban it from *.ml & *.mli files? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434694 - camlp4/camlp5 syntax extensions are a bit different from a distribution point of view. They usually don't need a -devel package, and they require *.cmo files to be distributed. And sometimes they should be noarch. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435431 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435299 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435293

And: - certain binaries should not be stripped https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435559

On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 03:38:11PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 03:05:48PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > I've started a page for updating the packaging guidelines. > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml > > > > At the moment it's a straight copy of the packaging guidelines except > > that I've updated 'ocaml-foolib.spec' from my private copy of that > > file. > > > > Some ideas: > > > > - how useful is the whole '%opt' stuff now that we have native > > compilation on every Fedora architecture? > > > > - use of chrpath and strip > > > > - should we finally distribute ocaml-find-requires/provides with > > upstream RPM? They haven't changed in a long time. > > > > - note about some common rpmlint errors: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433783 > > > > - ISO-8859-1 - should we ban it from *.ml & *.mli files? > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434694 > > > > - camlp4/camlp5 syntax extensions are a bit different from a > > distribution point of view. They usually don't need a -devel > > package, and they require *.cmo files to be distributed. > > And sometimes they should be noarch. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435431 > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435299 > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435293 > > And while I remember: > > - ocaml-pcre-devel pulls in ocaml-pcre and pcre. > However it doesn't pull in pcre-devel, so you cannot actually > 'devel'op software with this package: programs will fail to link > because of missing -lpcre. This may be a general problem with > all our packages which use C libs, although for some reason > I've only hit it with this one. And: - certain binaries should not be stripped https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435559

On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 16:53 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > - Clarify where documentation should go. Currently my practice has > been to put just the license file (if any) in the main package's %doc, > and the license file plus all other documentation & examples in > the devel subpackage. This duplicates (only) the license file, but > that seems acceptable since we shouldn't distribute software without > its license. -devel packages should Require the main package, thus, there really isn't any need for the duplicate license copy.

>>>> "RWMJ" == Richard W M Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com&gt; writes:

Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 11:57:40AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote: >> On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 16:53 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> >>> - Clarify where documentation should go. Currently my practice has >>> been to put just the license file (if any) in the main package's %doc, >>> and the license file plus all other documentation & examples in >>> the devel subpackage. This duplicates (only) the license file, but >>> that seems acceptable since we shouldn't distribute software without >>> its license. >> -devel packages should Require the main package, thus, there really >> isn't any need for the duplicate license copy. > > But you could still just install the main package and not devel, and > then you are in the situation where Fedora has distributed a binary > and basically removed the licensing information. It doesn't feel like > the right thing to do to me (but IANAL). > No Spot means it the other way around, keep the license in the main package and drop it from the -devel one as that requires the main package anyways.

Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 11:57:40AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote: >> On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 16:53 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> >>> - Clarify where documentation should go. Currently my practice has >>> been to put just the license file (if any) in the main package's %doc, >>> and the license file plus all other documentation & examples in >>> the devel subpackage. This duplicates (only) the license file, but >>> that seems acceptable since we shouldn't distribute software without >>> its license. >> -devel packages should Require the main package, thus, there really >> isn't any need for the duplicate license copy. > > But you could still just install the main package and not devel, and > then you are in the situation where Fedora has distributed a binary > and basically removed the licensing information. It doesn't feel like > the right thing to do to me (but IANAL). > No Spot means it the other way around, keep the license in the main package and drop it from the -devel one as that requires the main package anyways.

>>>>> "PN" == Parag N(पराग़) <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt; writes: PN> I prefer to see this documented in guidelines instead to discuss PN> this on fedora-packaging or say on fedora-devel list. I assume PN> same will be applied for other %doc files AUTHORS ChangeLog README PN> that is not to include them if they are same files already PN> included in main package right? Well, the existing guidelines already cover this by explicitly banning duplicates in the %files list. I see the current discussion as addressing the question of whether there are any permissible exceptions to that, and whether the guidelines need to be modified to allow them. That is obviously on topic for this list.

[1] Interesting corner case: Is it legal to %doc (and therefore to allow not installing them due to --exclude-docs) legal documents? ... Just wondering ;)

I've started a page for updating the packaging guidelines. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml At the moment it's a straight copy of the packaging guidelines except that I've updated 'ocaml-foolib.spec' from my private copy of that file. Some ideas: - how useful is the whole '%opt' stuff now that we have native compilation on every Fedora architecture?

- use of chrpath and strip

- should we finally distribute ocaml-find-requires/provides with upstream RPM? They haven't changed in a long time.

- note about some common rpmlint errors: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433783

- ISO-8859-1 - should we ban it from *.ml & *.mli files? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434694

- camlp4/camlp5 syntax extensions are a bit different from a distribution point of view. They usually don't need a -devel package, and they require *.cmo files to be distributed. And sometimes they should be noarch. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435431

Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > - camlp4/camlp5 syntax extensions are a bit different from a > distribution point of view. They usually don't need a -devel > package, and they require *.cmo files to be distributed. > And sometimes they should be noarch. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435431 Erm I don't see any .cmo files in the filelist for this one?

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml Diff from the previous version: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml?action=diff&rev2... Comments etc. welcome.