https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391 --- Comment #4 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- 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.fc20.src.rpm ✗ 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) > 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). 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. > 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 > That line works, thanks. As for the dependency generator, wow, someone needs to update those templates. > 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. > Yes, works fine once I depended only on ocaml-findlib. > 3) Not all architectures support ocaml. Add this to your spec file: > > ExclusiveArch: %{ocaml_arches} > Added > 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 > 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) > 5) Since the packages are arch-specific, the dependency from the -devel > subpackage to the main package should include %{?_isa}. > Added (again, the newspec template... sigh) > 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. > I'm using upstream's test suite for now, even though it's incomplete. > 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". > Fixed > 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.) > Fixed > 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. > 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 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review