[Bug 1796271] Review Request: ocaml-lablgtk3 - OCaml interface to gtk3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796271 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-03-25 16:16:24 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-17573fc8ee has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1796271] Review Request: ocaml-lablgtk3 - OCaml interface to gtk3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796271 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- ocaml-lablgtk3-3.1.0-2.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-17573fc8ee -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1796271] Review Request: ocaml-lablgtk3 - OCaml interface to gtk3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796271 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-17573fc8ee has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-17573fc8ee -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1796271] Review Request: ocaml-lablgtk3 - OCaml interface to gtk3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796271 --- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ocaml-lablgtk3 -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1796271] Review Request: ocaml-lablgtk3 - OCaml interface to gtk3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796271 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|i.uca...@gmail.com -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1796271] Review Request: ocaml-lablgtk3 - OCaml interface to gtk3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796271 --- Comment #10 from Jerry James --- Oops, sorry about the f32/f33 confusion. I'm glad you figured it out. Thank you for the 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1796271] Review Request: ocaml-lablgtk3 - OCaml interface to gtk3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796271
Iñaki Ucar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Iñaki Ucar ---
With the fc33.src.rpm referred above, everything ok, no further issues. Package
review below for reference.
Package is APPROVED.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Public domain", "Public
domain", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License (v2)", "GNU
Lesser General Public License (v3 or later)", "GNU Lesser General
Public License (v2)", "GNU Lesser General Public License", "GNU Lesser
General Public License (v2.1 or later)". 288 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/iucar/fedora-
review/ocaml-lablgtk3/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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 122880 bytes in 10 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]: 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]: 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]: 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 atta
[Bug 1796271] Review Request: ocaml-lablgtk3 - OCaml interface to gtk3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796271 --- Comment #8 from Iñaki Ucar --- The link provided for the SRPM doesn't exist. But there exists a fc33.src.rpm. Is that the right one? -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1796271] Review Request: ocaml-lablgtk3 - OCaml interface to gtk3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796271 --- Comment #7 from Jerry James --- The problem turned out to be a bug in ocaml-dune. A fixed version has been built in Rawhide, but there has been no Rawhide compose since then. You'll either have to wait for the next compose or pass --enablerepo=local for a build to work. New URLs: Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-lablgtk3/ocaml-lablgtk3.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-lablgtk3/ocaml-lablgtk3-3.1.0-2.fc32.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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1796271] Review Request: ocaml-lablgtk3 - OCaml interface to gtk3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796271
--- Comment #6 from Jerry James ---
(In reply to Iñaki Ucar from comment #5)
> - The devel subpackage misses the %{?_isa} flag in "Requires: %{name} =
> %{version}-%{release}".
Good catch. Added.
> - Why is the sourceview3 subpackage named without the gtk prefix?
Because I want the subpackage names to match the opam names. If you look
inside the build directory, you will find these files:
- lablgtk3.opam
- lablgtk3-gtkspell3.opam
- lablgtk3-sourceview3.opam
Hence the subpackages are named gtkspell3 and sourceview3. Yes, it seems
inconsistent, but that's what upstream chose.
> - The examples directory is cleaned up, but it's not installed. Not sure if
> this is intentional.
I started work on packaging the examples, decided I didn't really want to
package them after all, then forgot to remove that. I have removed it now.
And now the package is failing to build in mock, with a segfault. I'm not sure
what changed. I got a clean build when I filed the original review request. I
will have to track this down before I can make a new SRPM.
--
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1796271] Review Request: ocaml-lablgtk3 - OCaml interface to gtk3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796271
--- Comment #5 from Iñaki Ucar ---
No significant complaints from the fedora-review tool. Some comments:
- The devel subpackage misses the %{?_isa} flag in "Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}".
- Why is the sourceview3 subpackage named without the gtk prefix?
- The examples directory is cleaned up, but it's not installed. Not sure if
this is intentional.
- If you decide to pack the examples, they are in the Public Domain.
- License check ok for the rest of the files, final provides and requires look
good.
--
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1796271] Review Request: ocaml-lablgtk3 - OCaml interface to gtk3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796271 --- Comment #4 from Jerry James --- Yes, the necessary prerequisites do not exist in F31. This package can only be built in F32 or Rawhide. Hopefully the GPG key situation has been resolved now. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1796271] Review Request: ocaml-lablgtk3 - OCaml interface to gtk3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796271 --- Comment #3 from Iñaki Ucar --- I tried to run the review in f31 instead (there are problems with the GPG keys right now in rawhide), and I see: File "src/dune", line 39, characters 20-26: 39 | (libraries threads cairo2)) ^^ Error: Library "cairo2" not found. Hint: try: dune external-lib-deps --missing @@default File "tools/dune", line 26, characters 12-29: 26 | (libraries dune.configurator)) ^ Error: Library "dune.configurator" not found. Hint: try: dune external-lib-deps --missing @@default -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1796271] Review Request: ocaml-lablgtk3 - OCaml interface to gtk3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796271 Iñaki Ucar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||i.uca...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1796271] Review Request: ocaml-lablgtk3 - OCaml interface to gtk3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796271 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James --- It looks like the ocaml-cairo build from the mass rebuild, which contains ocaml-cairo-0.6.1, has not yet been tagged into Rawhide. If you see ocaml-cairo-0.4.7-0.28.gitbe5a298.fc32 in your build root, then that is the problem. Hopefully the tagging operation will not take much longer. In the meantime, if you checkout the ocaml-cairo repo and do a build, then put that build into a repo that mock can pull from, the ocaml-lablgtk3 build should succeed. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1796271] Review Request: ocaml-lablgtk3 - OCaml interface to gtk3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796271 dan.cer...@cgc-instruments.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dan.cermak@cgc-instruments. ||com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from dan.cer...@cgc-instruments.com --- The package fails to build in Rawhide with the following error: cairo_pango_stubs.c:31:10: fatal error: cairo_ocaml.h: No such file or directory 31 | #include "cairo_ocaml.h" | ^~~ compilation terminated. Maybe a missing BuildRequires? -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
