https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2291290 --- Comment #5 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - OCaml packages are no longer built for 32-bit x86. All current OCaml spec files contain these lines: # OCaml packages not built on i686 since OCaml 5 / Fedora 39. ExcludeArch: %{ix86} - This spec file also needs these lines: %ifnarch %{ocaml_native_compiler} %global debug_package %{nil} %endif Otherwise, building on a bytecode-only architecture (such as ppc64le for F39 and F40) fails like this: Processing files: ocaml-pprint-debugsource-20230830-1.fc40.ppc64le RPM build errors: error: Empty %files file /builddir/build/BUILD/pprint-20230830/debugsourcefiles.list Empty %files file /builddir/build/BUILD/pprint-20230830/debugsourcefiles.list - The License field is missing a license exception. See the license field in pprint.opam. - The version requirements in the BuildRequires do not match those in pprint.opam. - Please wrap the text in %description at about 72 columns. See the description-line-too-long rpmlint warning below. - Just a suggestion, not a requirement: include AUTHORS.md in %doc. That shows apprecation to upstream. - The test code is not even being compiled, much less run. It looks like the %dune_check macro is not sufficient for this package. Instead, do this: %check dune exec test/PPrintTest.exe ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License", "*No copyright* GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0". 34 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/2291290-ocaml-pprint/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: 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 %license. [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 4046 bytes in 2 files. [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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ocaml-pprint-20230830-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm ocaml-pprint-devel-20230830-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm ocaml-pprint-debuginfo-20230830-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm ocaml-pprint-debugsource-20230830-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm ocaml-pprint-20230830-1.fc41.src.rpm ================================================ rpmlint session starts ================================================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpw6paq4am')] checks: 32, packages: 5 ocaml-pprint-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ocaml/pprint/pprint.a ocaml-pprint.src: E: spelling-error ('combinator', 'Summary(en_US) combinator -> combination, contaminator, coordinator') ocaml-pprint.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('combinator', 'Summary(en_US) combinator -> combination, contaminator, coordinator') ocaml-pprint-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ocaml-pprint.src: E: description-line-too-long PPrint is an OCaml library for pretty-printing textual documents. It takes care of indentation and line breaks, and is typically used to pretty-print code. ocaml-pprint.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long PPrint is an OCaml library for pretty-printing textual documents. It takes care of indentation and line breaks, and is typically used to pretty-print code. ========== 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 1 warnings, 20 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.4 s =========== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ocaml-pprint-debuginfo-20230830-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm ================================================ rpmlint session starts ================================================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpaanqssi4')] checks: 32, packages: 1 =========== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s =========== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 4 ocaml-pprint-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ocaml/pprint/pprint.a ocaml-pprint.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('combinator', 'Summary(en_US) combinator -> combination, contaminator, coordinator') ocaml-pprint-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ocaml-pprint.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long PPrint is an OCaml library for pretty-printing textual documents. It takes care of indentation and line breaks, and is typically used to pretty-print code. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 1 warnings, 17 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/fpottier/pprint/archive/20230830/pprint-20230830.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3eddd10895d7abe792bdfb3af39af169d4aaacc41b4a4e9a11250f60bcd6ebf0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3eddd10895d7abe792bdfb3af39af169d4aaacc41b4a4e9a11250f60bcd6ebf0 Requires -------- ocaml-pprint (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml(CamlinternalFormatBasics) ocaml(CamlinternalOO) ocaml(PPrintEngine) ocaml(Stdlib) ocaml(Stdlib__Array) ocaml(Stdlib__Buffer) ocaml(Stdlib__Char) ocaml(Stdlib__Domain) ocaml(Stdlib__Either) ocaml(Stdlib__Format) ocaml(Stdlib__Int32) ocaml(Stdlib__List) ocaml(Stdlib__Obj) ocaml(Stdlib__Printf) ocaml(Stdlib__Seq) ocaml(Stdlib__String) ocaml(Stdlib__Uchar) rtld(GNU_HASH) ocaml-pprint-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml(CamlinternalFormatBasics) ocaml(CamlinternalOO) ocaml(PPrintEngine) ocaml(Stdlib) ocaml(Stdlib__Array) ocaml(Stdlib__Buffer) ocaml(Stdlib__Char) ocaml(Stdlib__Domain) ocaml(Stdlib__Either) ocaml(Stdlib__Format) ocaml(Stdlib__Int32) ocaml(Stdlib__List) ocaml(Stdlib__Obj) ocaml(Stdlib__Printf) ocaml(Stdlib__Seq) ocaml(Stdlib__String) ocaml(Stdlib__Uchar) ocaml-pprint(x86-64) ocamlx(CamlinternalFormat) ocamlx(CamlinternalOO) ocamlx(PPrintEngine) ocamlx(Stdlib) ocamlx(Stdlib__Array) ocamlx(Stdlib__Buffer) ocamlx(Stdlib__Bytes) ocamlx(Stdlib__Format) ocamlx(Stdlib__List) ocamlx(Stdlib__Printf) ocamlx(Stdlib__Queue) ocamlx(Stdlib__String) ocaml-pprint-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml-pprint-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- ocaml-pprint: ocaml(PPrint) ocaml(PPrintEngine) ocaml-pprint ocaml-pprint(x86-64) ocaml-pprint-devel: ocaml(PPrint) ocaml(PPrintEngine) ocaml-pprint-devel ocaml-pprint-devel(x86-64) ocamlx(PPrint) ocamlx(PPrintEngine) ocaml-pprint-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) ocaml-pprint-debuginfo ocaml-pprint-debuginfo(x86-64) ocaml-pprint-debugsource: ocaml-pprint-debugsource ocaml-pprint-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/jamesjer/2291290-ocaml-pprint/srpm/ocaml-pprint.spec 2024-06-29 11:36:38.682433293 -0600 +++ /home/jamesjer/2291290-ocaml-pprint/srpm-unpacked/ocaml-pprint.spec 2024-04-24 18:00:00.000000000 -0600 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.6.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: ocaml-pprint Version: 20230830 @@ -41,3 +51,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Thu Apr 25 2024 U2FsdGVkX1 <U2FsdGVkX1@xxxxxxxxx> - 20230830-1 +- first commit +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2291290 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Ocaml, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Ruby, SugarActivity, PHP, Python, Java, R, Haskell, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2291290 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202291290%23c5 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
