https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055395 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- The first eight issues are repeats from the previous 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) Add %{?_isa} to the -devel dependency on the main package. 6) Remove rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT from the top of %install. 7) Move %define libname down farther and make it %global instead. 8) Consider adding a %check script; perhaps include a small XML file in the sources and use xmltrip to convert it to something. The idea would be to just show that it runs at all, rather than segfaulting, producing no output, etc. 9) Shouldn't the first line of %build be something like this? ./pkg/build %(sed 's/0/false;s/1/true' <<< %{opt}) 10) The spec BRs ocaml-ocamldoc, but then doesn't use it. Plus the prebuilt documentation in the doc subdirectory doesn't go into either binary RPM. Either regenerate the documentation with ocaml-ocamldoc, or drop the BR. In either case, the documentation should probably go into the -devel RPM. 11) Speaking of documentation, I think that README.md would fit better in the main package than in -devel. It gives a succint description of what the package does, and describes the xmltrip binary. It also mentions the license, which is good in the absence of a separate license file. 12) Permissions on xmltrip and the binary are 775, but should be 755. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: 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 4 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]: 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]: 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: [!]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ocaml-xmlm- devel [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-xmlm-1.2.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm ocaml-xmlm-devel-1.2.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm ocaml-xmlm-1.2.0-1.fc21.src.rpm ocaml-xmlm.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> codex, code, codes ocaml-xmlm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes ocaml-xmlm.x86_64: W: no-documentation ocaml-xmlm.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/xmltrip 0775L ocaml-xmlm.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/ocaml/xmlm/xmlm.cmxs 0775L ocaml-xmlm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xmltrip ocaml-xmlm.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> codex, code, codes ocaml-xmlm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint ocaml-xmlm-devel ocaml-xmlm ocaml-xmlm.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> codex, code, codes ocaml-xmlm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes ocaml-xmlm.x86_64: W: no-documentation ocaml-xmlm.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/xmltrip 0775L ocaml-xmlm.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/ocaml/xmlm/xmlm.cmxs 0775L ocaml-xmlm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xmltrip 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- ocaml-xmlm-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml-xmlm ocaml-xmlm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml(Array) ocaml(Buffer) ocaml(Char) ocaml(Hashtbl) ocaml(List) ocaml(Pervasives) ocaml(String) ocaml(runtime) Provides -------- ocaml-xmlm-devel: ocaml-xmlm-devel ocaml-xmlm-devel(x86-64) ocaml-xmlm: ocaml(Xmlm) ocaml-xmlm ocaml-xmlm(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://erratique.ch/software/xmlm/releases/xmlm-1.2.0.tbz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d012018af5d1948f65404e1cc811ae0eab563b23006416f79b6ffc627966dccb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d012018af5d1948f65404e1cc811ae0eab563b23006416f79b6ffc627966dccb Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1055395 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Ocaml, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Perl, 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