[Bug 1200384] Review Request: ocaml-config-file - Configuration file management for OCaml

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]