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-ounit - Unit test framework for OCaml https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445067 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-05-10 19:50 EST ------- I think the license text is almost exactly that of the "Modern Style with sublicense" example from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT. I don't think it's BSD. Any reason you don't run the included tests? A simple "make test" in a %check section seems to work OK. * source files match upstream: 3ab40dfe4202aa83fa0309d1265b30e1acd633fec1ad728e5b463dde07737e13 ounit-1.0.2.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field does not match the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: ocaml-ounit-1.0.2-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm ocaml(OUnit) = 06781756bb7be2785cf39ab7edd5c92b ocaml-ounit = 1.0.2-1.fc9 = ocaml(Arg) = 03e86a4154064ea900dc32c05f53e364 ocaml(Array) = aa8e3cd5824f9bb40b93fcd38d0c95b5 ocaml(Buffer) = f6cef633ea14963b84b79c4095c63dc3 ocaml(Format) = 35fe566f7a37d8991a5c822bd1463949 ocaml(List) = da1ce9168f0408ff26158af757456948 ocaml(Pervasives) = 8ba3d1faa24d659525c9025f41fd0c57 ocaml(Printexc) = 82717999a586ede6925c0aa18d6562ac ocaml(Sys) = 0da495f5a80f31899139359805318f28 ocaml(Unix) = 9a46a8db115947409e54686ada118599 ocaml(runtime) = 3.10.1 ocaml-ounit-devel-1.0.2-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm ocaml-ounit-devel = 1.0.2-1.fc9 = ocaml-ounit = 1.0.2-1.fc9 X %check is not present, but a functional test suite exists. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files (except for the LICENSE file) * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * .cma, .cmi, .so, .so.owner, META files in the main package. * .a, .cmxa, .cmx and .mli files are in the -devel subpackage. * .cmo, .o and .ml files not included -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review