Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ocaml-expat - OCaml wrapper for the Expat XML parsing library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241483 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow@xxxxxxxxx 2007-08-01 20:20 EST ------- === REQUIRED ITEMS === [ OK ] Package successfully compiles and builds on at least one supported arch. [ OK ] Mock built on x86_64 [ F-Devel ] [ OK ] Package is named according to the Package Naming and Ocaml Guidelines. [ OK ] Spec file name match the packaging naming Ocaml guidelines. [ Ok ] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [ OK ] Package is not relocatable. [ OK ] Buildroot is correct [ OK ] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license. [ OK ] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: GPL [ OK ] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ OK ] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [ OK ] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. [ OK ] The spec file handles locales properly. [ OK ] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [ OK ] Package must own all directories that it creates. [ OK ] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ OK ] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [ OK ] Permissions on files are set properly. [ OK ] Package has a %clean section. [ OK ] Package consistently uses macros. [ OK ] Package contains code, or permissable content. [ SKIP ] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [ OK ] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ SKIP ] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [ SKIP ] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [ SKIP ] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [ SKIP ] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [ CHECK ] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [ OK ] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [ SKIP ] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file. [ OK ] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages According to OCaml Packaging Guideline: [ OK ] OCaml modules / libs should be named ocaml-foo. [ OK ] The spec file should still build bytecode libraries and binaries. [ OK ] Should Test if the native compiler is present. [ OK ] main package should contain files matching all files which mentioned in OCaml guideline if present. [ OK ] -devel sub-package Should contains all files which're mentioned in OCaml guidelines if present. [CHECK] Requires: libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libexpat.so.0()(64bit) ocaml(Callback) = e5ca1fb5990fac2b7b17cbb1712cffe2 ocaml(Pervasives) = 8ba3d1faa24d659525c9025f41fd0c57 ocaml = 3.10.0-1.fc8 [ ? ] rpmlint: * on -devel package: silent * on main package: ---------------------------------------------- W: ocaml-expat devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ocaml/expat/expat.cmi According to the OCaml guidelines, those can be ignored. W: ocaml-expat unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/ocaml/stublibs/dllmlexpat.so E: ocaml-expat binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/ocaml/stublibs/dllmlexpat.so ['/usr/local/lib'] However those need some fix. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review