https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200384 --- Comment #4 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Tomas Heinrich from comment #3) > rpmlint: > (rpmlint-1.6-2.fc22.noarch) > > > rpms/x86_64/ocaml-config-file-1.2-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm > > ocaml-config-file.x86_64: E: no-binary > > ocaml-config-file.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. > > Should this package actually be noarch? Can you provide a rationale why, > either way? In this very specific instance (but not in OCaml libraries in general) the ocaml-config-file package contains only bytecode. However we have found in the past that bytecode isn't completely non-arch-specific, so I'd be very dubious about making the subpackage noarch. It would require you to build on arm/x86/x86-64 and then manually compare the files to check there are really no differences. The -devel subpackage has a *.cmxs file which is really a shared library of native code, so that's certainly not noarch. I would not advise making either subpackage noarch. > > rpms/x86_64/ocaml-config-file-debuginfo-1.2-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm > > ocaml-config-file-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources > > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. > > Can't really say why this one is happening. Have you got the filelist handy? Since OCaml 4, the compiler supports fairly good DWARF generation, but our debuginfo tooling doesn't think *.ml is a source file. Also you may have to change the invocation of ocamlc & ocamlopt to pass -g everywhere. Typically upstream OCaml packages don't do this consistently. If you're not passing -g to everything, then you'll end up with empty/broken debuginfo which might be what's happening here. > > rpms/x86_64/ocaml-config-file-devel-1.2-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm > > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > > > srpms/ocaml-config-file-1.2-2.fc22.src.rpm > > ocaml-config-file.src:40: W: configure-without-libdir-spec > > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > > Looks benign, but I guess it won't hurt to add an explicit --libdir=... It depends if the configure script supplied by upstream is a real autotools configure, or something else. It might choke on --libdir. -- 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