https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055394 Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- The first eight issues are repeats from the previous two reviews: 1) Remove the internal dependency generator workarounds. 2) Build a usable -debuginfo package on platforms that generate binary code. 3) The build requires ocaml-findlib only, not ocaml-findlib-devel. 4) Add ExclusiveArch: %{ocaml_arches} to the spec file. 5) Remove rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT from the top of %install. 6) Move %define libname down farther and make it %global instead. 7) If possible, avoid building the bytecode version on platforms that can build the binary version. 8) Consider adding a %check script; "make test" appears to work for me. 9) A '#' character at the start of a line in %description is interpreted as a comment. Check the output of rpm -qi on the binary RPM. There is a blank line where "#ext directives." should appear. Unfortunately, rpm does not appear to have a sane way to escape that character, so I think you will be forced to reflow the text. (At least, I could not figure out how to esacpe it; e.g. "\#ext directives." in the source appears exactly like that in the output.) 10) Does this package really BR ocaml-ocamldoc? Certainly, no documentation generated by ocaml-ocamldoc is being installed. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Ocaml: [x]: This should never happen ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define libname %(echo %{name} | sed -e 's/^ocaml-//') [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ocaml-cppo-0.9.3-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm ocaml-cppo-0.9.3-1.fc21.src.rpm ocaml-cppo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) preprocessor -> processor, predecessor, process's ocaml-cppo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocessor -> processor, predecessor, process's ocaml-cppo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cppo ocaml-cppo.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) preprocessor -> processor, predecessor, process's ocaml-cppo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocessor -> processor, predecessor, process's 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint ocaml-cppo ocaml-cppo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) preprocessor -> processor, predecessor, process's ocaml-cppo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocessor -> processor, predecessor, process's ocaml-cppo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cppo 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- ocaml-cppo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- ocaml-cppo: ocaml-cppo ocaml-cppo(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://mjambon.com/releases/cppo/cppo-0.9.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 40a0acba9bd3b0bd8890ae2a87f479090bc4de7fa83b8ead028d08a34937923c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 40a0acba9bd3b0bd8890ae2a87f479090bc4de7fa83b8ead028d08a34937923c Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1055394 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Ocaml Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG -- 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