[Bug 1937455] Review Request: ocaml-caml-mode - Emacs mode for editing OCaml source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1937455 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2021-03-31 00:16:17 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-376a797e94 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1937455] Review Request: ocaml-caml-mode - Emacs mode for editing OCaml source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1937455 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-376a797e94 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-376a797e94 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-376a797e94 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1937455] Review Request: ocaml-caml-mode - Emacs mode for editing OCaml source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1937455 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-376a797e94 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-376a797e94 -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1937455] Review Request: ocaml-caml-mode - Emacs mode for editing OCaml source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1937455 --- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ocaml-caml-mode -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1937455] Review Request: ocaml-caml-mode - Emacs mode for editing OCaml source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1937455 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #7 from Jerry James --- (In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #5) > [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/ocaml > > I guess OK since /usr/lib64/ocaml should be owned by the ocaml compiler. No, wait. That's not right. I'm used to OCaml packages automatically pulling in the base ocaml package, but that doesn't happen here. I'll add "Requires: ocaml(runtime)". (In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #6) > It would be nice to work with upstream to fix their out of date > COPYING file, however that does not block the package in Fedora. I will point that out to upstream. Thank you for the quick 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1937455] Review Request: ocaml-caml-mode - Emacs mode for editing OCaml source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1937455 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Richard W.M. Jones --- It would be nice to work with upstream to fix their out of date COPYING file, however that does not block the package in Fedora. = This package is APPROVED by rjones = -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1937455] Review Request: ocaml-caml-mode - Emacs mode for editing OCaml source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1937455
--- Comment #5 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
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", "GNU General Public License, Version
2", "GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or
later", "GNU General Public License v1.0 or later". 5 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/var/tmp/1937455-ocaml-caml-mode/licensecheck.txt
I checked licensecheck.txt and the files manually and it is fine.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
Yes - the emacs-foo package has the license file, and the opam package
depends on that.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/ocaml
I guess OK since /usr/lib64/ocaml should be owned by the ocaml compiler.
[-]: %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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: 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.
There is a justifying comment in the spec file.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 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 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
= 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in emacs-
caml-mode
Not needed as far as I'm aware.
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations
[Bug 1937455] Review Request: ocaml-caml-mode - Emacs mode for editing OCaml source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1937455
--- Comment #4 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
So a first look at the package and the emacs packaging guidelines
(https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Emacs/)
Name looks good. xemacs is dead anyway these days.
Has a subpackage called "emacs-foo" (emacs-caml-mode) - good.
Lisp files in %{_emacs_sitelispdir}/caml-mode - good.
Startup file in %{_emacs_sitestartdir} - good.
Doesn't need a emacs-common-* subpackage - good.
It's a bit unclear, but it seems like it could be missing this?
Requires: emacs-filesystem >= %{_emacs_version}
However the guidelines themselves seem to conflict, because the
example only suggests using
Requires: emacs(bin) >= %{_emacs_version}
(which this package does - good).
So maybe this is not a problem.
Does BR emacs - good.
Does bytecompilation using the suggested macros - good.
BuildArch: noarch - 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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1937455] Review Request: ocaml-caml-mode - Emacs mode for editing OCaml source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1937455 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rjo...@redhat.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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1937455] Review Request: ocaml-caml-mode - Emacs mode for editing OCaml source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1937455 --- Comment #3 from Jerry James --- I forgot to mention that I reuploaded the spec and srpm files for all 3 of the reviews you commented on, so you can verify that I fixed the ownership issues if you wish. -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1937455] Review Request: ocaml-caml-mode - Emacs mode for editing OCaml source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1937455 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James --- Thank you again for the review! (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > - Own this directory: > > [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/caml-mode Fixed. > - Notify upstream about their use of an obsolete FSF address: > > emacs-caml-mode.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/share/licenses/emacs-caml-mode/COPYING I will send them a pull request. > - Not sure about this one: > > emacs-caml-mode.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/bin/ocamltags > > Generally we remove shebangs for python, but I don't know how Ocaml should > be handled. This is actually an Emacs script. There is no shebang because Emacs has its own ideas about what should be on the first line of the file ... but it works anyway. Try it! -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1937455] Review Request: ocaml-caml-mode - Emacs mode for editing OCaml source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1937455
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Own this directory:
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/caml-mode
- Notify upstream about their use of an obsolete FSF address:
emacs-caml-mode.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/licenses/emacs-caml-mode/COPYING
- Not sure about this one:
emacs-caml-mode.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/bin/ocamltags
Generally we remove shebangs for python, but I don't know how Ocaml should be
handled.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
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", "GNU General Public License, Version
2", "GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or
later", "GNU General Public License v1.0 or later". 5 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/ocaml-caml-mode/review-ocaml-caml-
mode/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/caml-mode
[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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 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 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 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
= 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in emacs-
caml-mode
[?]: Package
