Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I've started a page for updating the packaging guidelines. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml At the moment it's a straight copy of the packaging guidelines except that I've updated 'ocaml-foolib.spec' from my private copy of that file. Some ideas: - how useful is the whole '%opt' stuff now that we have native compilation on every Fedora architecture?
Keep in mind that people are working hard to get secondary arches of the ground, so I vote to keep it in.
- use of chrpath and strip
I don't see this anywhere in: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml Explain?
- should we finally distribute ocaml-find-requires/provides with upstream RPM? They haven't changed in a long time.
+1
- note about some common rpmlint errors: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433783
Good work on trying to get rpmlint ocaml aware, but how is this relevant for the guidelines, other then maybe adding a section about which warnings may be ignored
- ISO-8859-1 - should we ban it from *.ml & *.mli files? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434694
I wouldn't do that if the language explicitly allows using non ascii codes in identifiers, and also dictates use of a certain codepage for this, then we should respect this.
- camlp4/camlp5 syntax extensions are a bit different from a distribution point of view. They usually don't need a -devel package, and they require *.cmo files to be distributed. And sometimes they should be noarch. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435431
Erm I don't see any .cmo files in the filelist for this one? Regards, Hans -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
