[Bug 1055395] Review Request: ocaml-xmlm - A streaming XML codec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055395 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1055398 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055398 [Bug 1055398] Review Request: 0install - A decentralized cross-distribution software installation system -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055395] Review Request: ocaml-xmlm - A streaming XML codec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055395 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||loganje...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jerry James --- I will take this review. -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055395] Review Request: ocaml-xmlm - A streaming XML codec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055395
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
The first eight issues are repeats from the previous reviews:
1) Remove the internal dependency generator workarounds.
2) Build a usable -debuginfo package on platforms that generate binary code.
3) The build requires ocaml-findlib only, not ocaml-findlib-devel.
4) Add ExclusiveArch: %{ocaml_arches} to the spec file.
5) Add %{?_isa} to the -devel dependency on the main package.
6) Remove rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT from the top of %install.
7) Move %define libname down farther and make it %global instead.
8) Consider adding a %check script; perhaps include a small XML file in the
sources and use xmltrip to convert it to something. The idea would be to
just show that it runs at all, rather than segfaulting, producing no
output, etc.
9) Shouldn't the first line of %build be something like this?
./pkg/build %(sed 's/0/false;s/1/true' <<< %{opt})
10) The spec BRs ocaml-ocamldoc, but then doesn't use it. Plus the prebuilt
documentation in the doc subdirectory doesn't go into either binary RPM.
Either regenerate the documentation with ocaml-ocamldoc, or drop the BR.
In either case, the documentation should probably go into the -devel RPM.
11) Speaking of documentation, I think that README.md would fit better in the
main package than in -devel. It gives a succint description of what the
package does, and describes the xmltrip binary. It also mentions the
license, which is good in the absence of a separate license file.
12) Permissions on xmltrip and the binary are 775, but should be 755.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Permissions on files are set properly.
Note: See rpmlint output
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[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.
[-]: 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 %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[-]: 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.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 files.
[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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources us
[Bug 1055395] Review Request: ocaml-xmlm - A streaming XML codec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055395 --- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Thanks for the review -- feedback incorporated in -2: Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/ocaml/ocaml-xmlm.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/ocaml/ocaml-xmlm-1.2.0-2.fc20.src.rpm -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055395] Review Request: ocaml-xmlm - A streaming XML codec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055395 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Jerry James --- OK, that fixes all of the issues. This package is APPROVED. -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055395] Review Request: ocaml-xmlm - A streaming XML codec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055395 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ocaml-xmlm Short Description: A streaming XML codec Owners: salimma Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055395] Review Request: ocaml-xmlm - A streaming XML codec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055395 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055395] Review Request: ocaml-xmlm - A streaming XML codec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055395 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055395] Review Request: ocaml-xmlm - A streaming XML codec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055395 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- ocaml-xmlm-1.2.0-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ocaml-xmlm-1.2.0-2.fc19 -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055395] Review Request: ocaml-xmlm - A streaming XML codec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055395 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- ocaml-xmlm-1.2.0-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ocaml-xmlm-1.2.0-2.fc20 -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055395] Review Request: ocaml-xmlm - A streaming XML codec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055395 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055395] Review Request: ocaml-xmlm - A streaming XML codec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055395 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- ocaml-xmlm-1.2.0-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055395] Review Request: ocaml-xmlm - A streaming XML codec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055395 Ville Skyttä changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ville.sky...@iki.fi --- Comment #10 from Ville Skyttä --- Created attachment 862933 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=862933&action=edit Build with -g (In reply to Jerry James from comment #2) > 2) Build a usable -debuginfo package on platforms that generate binary code. This doesn't seem to have happened, -debuginfo doesn't include sources. The attached patch fixes that but the rest of $RPM_OPT_FLAGS aren't being used; I don't know enough about ocaml to tell whether/how that should be fixed. -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055395] Review Request: ocaml-xmlm - A streaming XML codec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055395 --- Comment #11 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- (In reply to Ville Skyttä from comment #10) > Created attachment 862933 [details] > Build with -g > > (In reply to Jerry James from comment #2) > > 2) Build a usable -debuginfo package on platforms that generate binary code. > > This doesn't seem to have happened, -debuginfo doesn't include sources. The > attached patch fixes that but the rest of $RPM_OPT_FLAGS aren't being used; > I don't know enough about ocaml to tell whether/how that should be fixed. Thanks; will push a revision once I investigate the optflags issue -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055395] Review Request: ocaml-xmlm - A streaming XML codec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055395 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||ocaml-xmlm-1.2.0-3.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-02-24 07:27:15 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- ocaml-xmlm-1.2.0-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055395] Review Request: ocaml-xmlm - A streaming XML codec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055395 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ocaml-xmlm-1.2.0-3.fc20 |ocaml-xmlm-1.2.0-3.fc19 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- ocaml-xmlm-1.2.0-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
