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=526034 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-11-01 19:24:04 EDT --- rpmlint is silent and the package builds fine. There are several lines in the spec which have no purpose on modern Fedora (BuildRoot:, first line of %install, and, on F13+, the entire %clean section) which you might want to remove if you're not targeting EPEL. You probably want to include some comment to the effect that xmlm-LICENSE was extracted from a source file so that it doesn't appear that you just included it randomly. chrpath is a build dependency but doesn't seem to be used. Is the contents of the test directory in the tarball something that could or should be run at build time? From the README file it looks more like example code than a test suite, but I could be wrong. The main package includes a .o file. The OCaml guidelines indicate that there are situations where it might be required in the -devel package, but no situation is listed where it would be permissible in the main package. You're the OCaml expert, however, so if you say it's needed then I'll defer to you but I wanted to make sure it wasn't in there by accident. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: d9963126b906b19003f272b63d6ea8ec5b270ed52342538c9eb4185b7235acb8 xmlm-1.0.2.tbz * 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 is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: ocaml-xmlm-1.0.2-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm ocaml(Xmlm) = 50533b2814aa16cb3cea128f7f967f3b ocaml-xmlm = 1.0.2-1.fc15 ocaml-xmlm(x86-64) = 1.0.2-1.fc15 = ocaml(Array) = 9c9fa5f11e2d6992c427dde4d1168489 ocaml(Buffer) = 0ce5de86183a833ed112488a1e6d281d ocaml(Char) = 3da72249626c7db769beafc97036cb4f ocaml(Hashtbl) = ee2a3220e38a4350c5bc131ce9f3f6ce ocaml(List) = a0e2e49d266ff302f8667651a43f71ba ocaml(Pervasives) = 88cb1505c8bdf9a4dcd2cdf3452732b4 ocaml(String) = ecc403546c1c50056801131811c39017 ocaml(runtime) = 3.11.2 ocaml-xmlm-devel-1.0.2-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm ocaml-xmlm-devel = 1.0.2-1.fc15 ocaml-xmlm-devel(x86-64) = 1.0.2-1.fc15 = ocaml-xmlm = 1.0.2-1.fc15 ? %check is not present; there's a test directory, but I'm not sure if it contains a test suite. * 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. ? a .o file is included. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review