[Bug 2217729] Review Request: ocaml-yaml - Parse and generate YAML 1.1/1.2 files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||ocaml-yaml-3.1.0-3.fc39 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2023-07-13 23:43:10 --- Comment #11 from Jerry James --- The package has been built in Rawhide. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217729%23c11 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2217729] Review Request: ocaml-yaml - Parse and generate YAML 1.1/1.2 files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ocaml-yaml -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217729%23c10 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2217729] Review Request: ocaml-yaml - Parse and generate YAML 1.1/1.2 files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Richard W.M. Jones --- *** This package is APPROVED for Fedora *** -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217729%23c9 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2217729] Review Request: ocaml-yaml - Parse and generate YAML 1.1/1.2 files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729
--- Comment #8 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
This rule is not applicable to RPM packages.
[x]: 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.
This is used by the OCaml compiler when linking programs
with ocaml-yaml.
[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", "ISC License", "*No copyright* ISC
License", "MIT License". 34 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/2217729-ocaml-yaml/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
Using %dune_build
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
Upstream bundles libyaml, but we have unbundled it here and are
working with upstream to get this fixed.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 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]: 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 attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires:
[Bug 2217729] Review Request: ocaml-yaml - Parse and generate YAML 1.1/1.2 files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729 --- Comment #7 from Richard W.M. Jones --- See also: https://github.com/avsm/ocaml-yaml/issues/51 https://github.com/yaml/libyaml/pull/235 -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217729%23c7 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2217729] Review Request: ocaml-yaml - Parse and generate YAML 1.1/1.2 files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(loganjerry@gmail. | |com)| --- Comment #6 from Jerry James --- Thank you! Something is wrong, though. The binary RPM doesn't show a dependency on libyaml. Ah, ffi/lib/dune needs "(c_library_flags -lyaml)". I have tweaked a few things and uploaded new spec and srpm files. Due to %autorelease/%autochangelog, the URLs are the same as before. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217729%23c6 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2217729] Review Request: ocaml-yaml - Parse and generate YAML 1.1/1.2 files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729 --- Comment #5 from Richard W.M. Jones --- This is ugly as hell, but works for me: http://git.annexia.org/?p=fedora-reviews.git;a=commitdiff;h=5e5e89d9d3f2773dc3d23f91100f43b1f2382933 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217729%23c5 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2217729] Review Request: ocaml-yaml - Parse and generate YAML 1.1/1.2 files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729
--- Comment #4 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
Interestingly libyaml & the copy of libyaml in ocaml-yaml are identical,
which I did not expect:
6e605fc9634e93e0187069a2e871d16d /home/rjones/d/libyaml/src/api.c
6e605fc9634e93e0187069a2e871d16d /home/rjones/d/ocaml-yaml/vendor/api.c
948f2ac1f42b36f9b6ed10ce0291bdb9 /home/rjones/d/libyaml/src/dumper.c
948f2ac1f42b36f9b6ed10ce0291bdb9 /home/rjones/d/ocaml-yaml/vendor/dumper.c
3867fc7a11ee386b8a5106cb506cb9c0 /home/rjones/d/libyaml/src/emitter.c
3867fc7a11ee386b8a5106cb506cb9c0 /home/rjones/d/ocaml-yaml/vendor/emitter.c
d1bb577f92e25d50b313da8d022f3149 /home/rjones/d/libyaml/src/loader.c
d1bb577f92e25d50b313da8d022f3149 /home/rjones/d/ocaml-yaml/vendor/loader.c
9c4f0181665c37d4bcdd05535e6a2130 /home/rjones/d/libyaml/src/parser.c
9c4f0181665c37d4bcdd05535e6a2130 /home/rjones/d/ocaml-yaml/vendor/parser.c
efcea8b4a8bcfbc96ae32abd0f18e472 /home/rjones/d/libyaml/src/reader.c
efcea8b4a8bcfbc96ae32abd0f18e472 /home/rjones/d/ocaml-yaml/vendor/reader.c
830f57f176e768c7fa97d086de18050d /home/rjones/d/libyaml/src/scanner.c
830f57f176e768c7fa97d086de18050d /home/rjones/d/ocaml-yaml/vendor/scanner.c
7b2e815cfd48dbfd462f3bd317059e3f /home/rjones/d/libyaml/src/writer.c
7b2e815cfd48dbfd462f3bd317059e3f /home/rjones/d/ocaml-yaml/vendor/writer.c
f9a3252c2bb3f882698c10254b484541 /home/rjones/d/libyaml/src/yaml_private.h
f9a3252c2bb3f882698c10254b484541
/home/rjones/d/ocaml-yaml/vendor/yaml_private.h
but the header is different:
11d060175ea0cbb1fb94f2459f1bd6e3 /home/rjones/d/libyaml/include/yaml.h
8e57b936e51a0ac6eefdebdb6483ffde /home/rjones/d/ocaml-yaml/vendor/yaml.h
Basically all the anonymous structs and unions in the header have been named.
There are lots of changes like:
yaml_token_type_t type;
/** The token data. */
-union {
+union data_u {
/** The stream start (for @c YAML_STREAM_START_TOKEN). */
-struct {
+struct stream_start_s {
/** The stream encoding. */
yaml_encoding_t encoding;
} stream_start;
The README explains:
> yaml.h has been modified to remove anonymous structs and unions, since
> ocaml-ctypes stub
> generation needs to probe their sizes at compile-time.
although it's not clear how adding names to structs achieves this. But let's
assume it's necessary for ctypes.
A possible way to unbundle this [ideally upstream] would be to copy
/usr/include/yaml.h,
apply some sed magic over it to add those names, then simply link to -lyaml for
the
code.
--
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217729%23c4
___
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, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2217729] Review Request: ocaml-yaml - Parse and generate YAML 1.1/1.2 files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(loganjerry@gmail. ||com) --- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones --- I stopped doing the review at ... - 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "ISC License", "*No copyright* ISC License", "MIT License". 44 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/2217729-ocaml-yaml/licensecheck.txt The licensecheck output isn't very accurate, but I checked the upstream sources instead and they're correctly annotated for ISC. However the bundled copy of libyaml is MIT licensed, so I believe the License field should probably be: ISC AND MIT A larger problem here is that we need a FPC exception to add the bundled libyaml to Fedora, unless we can work out how to unbundle it (which I'd prefer, actually). The situation is not ideal to say the least. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. (See above) - I think it'd be useful to try to find out exactly how upstream have modified libyaml, and work out if those changes are invasive or not, and if they can be separated out. I might have a look into this later. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217729%23c3 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2217729] Review Request: ocaml-yaml - Parse and generate YAML 1.1/1.2 files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729
--- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
I'd be inclined to conditionalize the tests, like:
%global run_tests 0
%if %{run_tests}
%endif
(rather than just using %if 0)
--
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217729%23c2
___
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, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2217729] Review Request: ocaml-yaml - Parse and generate YAML 1.1/1.2 files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rjo...@redhat.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC||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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2217729] Review Request: ocaml-yaml - Parse and generate YAML 1.1/1.2 files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729 Fedora Review Service changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://avsm.github.io/ocam ||l-yaml/ --- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6117193 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2217729-ocaml-yaml/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06117193-ocaml-yaml/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217729%23c1 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2217729] Review Request: ocaml-yaml - Parse and generate YAML 1.1/1.2 files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2217730 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217730 [Bug 2217730] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-deriving-yaml - Derive conversion functions between OCaml types and YAML -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
