https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119081 --- Comment #8 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Michel Alexandre Salim from comment #6) > Reviewing now; while I'm at it, the license field should probably be changed > to just LGPLv2 ? > > Here are the commit logs for that file on Github: > > https://github.com/ocaml/camlp4/commits/trunk/LICENSE It's "LGPLv2 with exceptions". Fixed in the upcoming version. (In reply to Michel Alexandre Salim from comment #7) > - duplicate ocaml(runtime) and ocaml-runtime in Requires: -- the manually > added requirement is probably unnecessary? This is a bit tricky. We need to make sure that it is only installed with the same version of OCaml (camlp4 depends on the abstract syntax tree of a particular version of OCaml). I added the explicit Requires ocaml-runtime to ensure this. The dependency generator is adding the ocaml(runtime) dependency, which hopefully duplicates my explicit dependency. If it's wrong, what will happen is the package will be uninstallable -- which is desirable in this case since it would indicate the package was force-built with the wrong version of OCaml and is thus likely to be broken. > - devel dependency on main package not subversioned with architecture Multilib is broken with OCaml so you should only install pure 64 bit OCaml packages. Anyway I have added %{?_isa} in the upcoming version. > - no %check There are no upstream tests as far as I can see. > - upstream's build/install.sh script does not preserve timestamps I will let them know, but I guess they won't care. Thanks for the review. -- 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