[Bug 477313] Review Request: ocaml-preludeml - OCaml utility functions

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477313


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx>  2008-12-21 15:47:12 EDT ---
You should prod upstream to get licensing information into all of the source
files, not just the top level one.

There is no need to extract the license text like that.  In fact, my
understanding is that you shouldn't do so, especially since you insist on
needlessly duplicating this generated license file between the two subpackages.
 I'll ask the licensing experts for clarification.

* source files match upstream (compared manually).
* 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.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  ocaml-preludeml-0.1-0.2.20080922.fc11.x86_64.rpm
   ocaml(Prelude) = bc560abdad61c8ad43c135a42a46cab8
   ocaml-preludeml = 0.1-0.2.20080922.fc11
   ocaml-preludeml(x86-64) = 0.1-0.2.20080922.fc11
  =
   ocaml(Array) = 9c9fa5f11e2d6992c427dde4d1168489
   ocaml(Bigarray) = fc2b6c88ffd318b9f111abe46ba99902
   ocaml(Buffer) = 23af67395823b652b807c4ae0b581211
   ocaml(Complex) = 73899d718b62e5534e8737bb363dbf71
   ocaml(Filename) = 7cd172f02b7ee9b8d7bda3bb92144951
   ocaml(Hashtbl) = ee2a3220e38a4350c5bc131ce9f3f6ce
   ocaml(Int32) = b2545c419b6b6a173cac4c0a3e7e0277
   ocaml(Int64) = d501d6e89fdce41c79f274fb464995d5
   ocaml(Lexing) = 4d17267334f1a6c75730dc3fae21fb9b
   ocaml(List) = a0e2e49d266ff302f8667651a43f71ba
   ocaml(Map) = d6ea0139afe59a16df7b23d35e571de7
   ocaml(Marshal) = 02be0525cda0ca38ef8d49584e7769d6
   ocaml(Nativeint) = 7233ce5207a538fea4f0c61ed411ea2c
   ocaml(Netbuffer) = b2846209efee896cd2574779d0d1d42d
   ocaml(Netchannels) = b370fbc569ce2ec79307482cf4263a41
   ocaml(Netdate) = 30913487673f7f8869f808f49a7fcadd
   ocaml(Obj) = c827f726ce05da709cf7de58fc15e324
   ocaml(Pcre) = 4fd7bbc136a5cb4f7df9321ec6092b80
   ocaml(Pervasives) = 88cb1505c8bdf9a4dcd2cdf3452732b4
   ocaml(Printf) = 807ecd3a1538992580464c03462c9964
   ocaml(Random) = 462fc826fd1ae9df8d15e3cb798cba9d
   ocaml(String) = ecc403546c1c50056801131811c39017
   ocaml(Sys) = 21bf525b2b3f3a46a54b96163adfe387
   ocaml(Unix) = 0596a58544f8cd88fed5bf5432a53d43
   ocaml(runtime) = 3.11.0

  ocaml-preludeml-devel-0.1-0.2.20080922.fc11.x86_64.rpm
   ocaml-preludeml-devel = 0.1-0.2.20080922.fc11
   ocaml-preludeml-devel(x86-64) = 0.1-0.2.20080922.fc11
  =
   ocaml-preludeml = 0.1-0.2.20080922.fc11

* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
O license file is duplicated; it should not be, but this is not a blocker.
* 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.
* .cmo and .ml files not included
* this is a syntax extension, so the .o file os OK in the main package.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]