[Bug 719152] Review Request: gappalib-coq - Coq support library for gappa
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719152 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||gappalib-coq-0.16.0-3.fc16 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-11-19 01:07:17 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-19 01:07:17 EST --- gappalib-coq-0.16.0-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719152] Review Request: gappalib-coq - Coq support library for gappa
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719152 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA Bug 719152 depends on bug 719150, which changed state. Bug 719150 Summary: Review Request: flocq - Formalization of floating point numbers for Coq https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719150 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-10 20:26:28 EST --- gappalib-coq-0.16.0-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719152] Review Request: gappalib-coq - Coq support library for gappa
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719152 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-10 10:59:12 EST --- gappalib-coq-0.16.0-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gappalib-coq-0.16.0-3.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719152] Review Request: gappalib-coq - Coq support library for gappa
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719152 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719152] Review Request: gappalib-coq - Coq support library for gappa
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719152 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla 2011-11-02 21:29:06 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719152] Review Request: gappalib-coq - Coq support library for gappa
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719152 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Jerry James 2011-11-02 18:09:44 EDT --- I think there is value, so I will call the subpackage -source. I'll have to go back and change the flocq package to match. And I'll change the description as noted. Thanks so much for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gappalib-coq Short Description: Coq support library for gappa Owners: jjames Branches: f16 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719152] Review Request: gappalib-coq - Coq support library for gappa
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719152 Markus Mayer changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Markus Mayer 2011-11-01 05:39:43 EDT --- Well, If you drop the -devel package I am totaly fine with it. But if you think that putting the sources in an subpackage brings benefit to the user I am also fine with that. If you decide this way I have only two requirenments: - Dont call it -devel, because users expect other functions from thouth kind of packages. (maybe -v is a good name?) - Add a description like for -el packages: This package contains the elisp source files for APEL under GNU Emacs. You do not need to install this package to run APEL. Install the emacs-apel package to use APEL with GNU Emacs. If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. This package is APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719152] Review Request: gappalib-coq - Coq support library for gappa
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719152 --- Comment #8 from Jerry James 2011-10-31 18:29:22 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) > emacs-foo-el packages exists for two reasons Good point. If I drop the -devel subpackage altogether, would you find this package acceptable? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719152] Review Request: gappalib-coq - Coq support library for gappa
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719152
--- Comment #7 from Markus Mayer 2011-10-31 14:16:11 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Thanks for the review!
>
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > NOK[1]: Please use %{buildroot} instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. That is just for
> > usabilty as it is easier to read if there is just one macro style used. See
> > Package guidelines: "Mixing the two styles, while valid, is bad from a QA
> > and
> > usability point of view, and should not be done in Fedora packages."
>
> You're talking about this:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS
>
> But I am not mixing the two styles discussed in that section. There is no
> instance of either %{buildroot} or %{optflags} in this spec file, therefore
> this is a straight $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + $RPM_OPT_FLAGS style. I don't understand
> what you are objecting to.
>
Yes, you are right. I have missinterpreted this section a bit.
> > NOK[2]: Can *.v files be considered as header files? As far as I understand
> > they more than source files. I think the devel subpackage should be
> > considered
> > as "Install this package, if you want to develope a application/library that
> > uses the base package". E.g. the devel package for an library written in C
> > only
> > contains the header files, because they are required to link the library. If
> > someone wants the source files not for developing, but for just looking at
> > it,
> > he is required to install the source package.
>
> The .v files are for human consumption only. They are not necessary for any
> computerized task. It is possible to compile applications that use
> gappalib-coq without needing the .v files. In that regard, they're kind of
> like the various emacs-foo-el packages; nothing in Fedora requires the
> contents
> of those packages, but they are useful for humans to look at.
>
> If -devel isn't a good name for this subpackage, then how about -source?
>
> > As Thomas Spura already mentioned on his review for flocq you should
> > consider
> > to doing a packaging draft and send it to fpc to clarify this.
>
> Yes, I will do this. It will probably take me a few days to complete.
> Thanks.
emacs-foo-el packages exists for two reasons (source:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Emacs):
- It is often the case that byte compiling the elisp source for one add-on will
require the presence of the elisp source for another add-on package at build
time for example.
- When debugging a problem with an (X)Emacs package, the Elisp debugger can
look up the relevant code or symbol definition in the source lisp file if
present.
If a user just wants to source to look at it, it is already possible using
'yumdownloader --source packagename'.
Maybe this can help you finding your way.
Regards,
Markus
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719152] Review Request: gappalib-coq - Coq support library for gappa
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719152
--- Comment #6 from Jerry James 2011-10-31 13:55:50 EDT
---
Thanks for the review!
(In reply to comment #5)
> NOK[1]: Please use %{buildroot} instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. That is just for
> usabilty as it is easier to read if there is just one macro style used. See
> Package guidelines: "Mixing the two styles, while valid, is bad from a QA and
> usability point of view, and should not be done in Fedora packages."
You're talking about this:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS
But I am not mixing the two styles discussed in that section. There is no
instance of either %{buildroot} or %{optflags} in this spec file, therefore
this is a straight $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + $RPM_OPT_FLAGS style. I don't understand
what you are objecting to.
> NOK[2]: Can *.v files be considered as header files? As far as I understand
> they more than source files. I think the devel subpackage should be considered
> as "Install this package, if you want to develope a application/library that
> uses the base package". E.g. the devel package for an library written in C
> only
> contains the header files, because they are required to link the library. If
> someone wants the source files not for developing, but for just looking at it,
> he is required to install the source package.
The .v files are for human consumption only. They are not necessary for any
computerized task. It is possible to compile applications that use
gappalib-coq without needing the .v files. In that regard, they're kind of
like the various emacs-foo-el packages; nothing in Fedora requires the contents
of those packages, but they are useful for humans to look at.
If -devel isn't a good name for this subpackage, then how about -source?
> As Thomas Spura already mentioned on his review for flocq you should consider
> to doing a packaging draft and send it to fpc to clarify this.
Yes, I will do this. It will probably take me a few days to complete. Thanks.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719152] Review Request: gappalib-coq - Coq support library for gappa
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719152
--- Comment #5 from Markus Mayer 2011-10-31 07:28:43 EDT ---
Must items:
OK: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: 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 must be included in %doc.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
N/A: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
N/A: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
N/A: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files
(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
N/A: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation
of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a
blocker.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example.
NOK[1]Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
N/A: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of
large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly
if it is not present.
NOK[2]: Header files must be in a -devel package.
N/A: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
N/A: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
OK: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
OK: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
N/A: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the
files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for
example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the
files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that
you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns,
then please present that at package
[Bug 719152] Review Request: gappalib-coq - Coq support library for gappa
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719152
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James 2011-10-29 19:04:13 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Unfortunatelly am not able to build you package:
Argh, I thought the ocaml-camlp5-devel BR would drag in ocaml, but it doesn't.
I changed the spec file to explicitly BR ocaml.
> - The naming guidelines says "If a new package is considered an "addon"
> package
> that enhances or adds a new functionality to an existing Fedora package
> without
> being useful on its own, its name should reflect this fact.
>
> The new package ("child") should prepend the "parent" package in its name, in
> the format: %{parent}-%{child}."
>
> Therefor the package name should be "gaapa-coq". On the other hand it says
> "When naming a package, the name should match the upstream tarball or project
> name from which this software came." So gaapalib-coq would be correct to. I am
> fine with both of them. Just take a look at the two names and decide for
> yourself.
Heh. Actually, the first version of this package was named gappa-coq. After
awhile, though, I thought I should go with the upstream naming, and changed it
to its current name. I think I would like to go with the current name.
> - Please use %{buildroot} instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Why?
> - You could create a marco for the coq version. So you dont have to maintain
> it
> on two places (Line 21 & 26 ).
Good idea. I have made that change. New URLs:
http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gappalib-coq/gappalib-coq.spec
http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gappalib-coq/gappalib-coq-0.16.0-3.fc17.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719152] Review Request: gappalib-coq - Coq support library for gappa
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719152
--- Comment #3 from Markus Mayer 2011-10-29 06:21:35 EDT ---
Unfortunatelly am not able to build you package:
ERROR:
+ ./configure --prefix=/usr --datadir=/usr/share
checking for a BSD-compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c
checking whether build environment is sane... yes
checking for a thread-safe mkdir -p... /bin/mkdir -p
checking for gawk... gawk
checking whether make sets $(MAKE)... yes
checking for coqc >= 8.3... /usr/bin/coqc
checking for coqdep... /usr/bin/coqdep
checking for ocamlc... no
checking for camlp5... /usr/bin/camlp5
checking for ocamlopt >= 3.11... which: no ocamlopt in
(/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/root/bin)
checking for Flocq... no
configure: error: *** Unable to find the Flocq library
(http://flocq.gforge.inria.fr/)
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.w4N0kf (%build)
flocq is already installed!
Please fix this, so I can go on with reviewing your package.
Things I have already discovered:
- The naming guidelines says "If a new package is considered an "addon" package
that enhances or adds a new functionality to an existing Fedora package without
being useful on its own, its name should reflect this fact.
The new package ("child") should prepend the "parent" package in its name, in
the format: %{parent}-%{child}."
Therefor the package name should be "gaapa-coq". On the other hand it says
"When naming a package, the name should match the upstream tarball or project
name from which this software came." So gaapalib-coq would be correct to. I am
fine with both of them. Just take a look at the two names and decide for
yourself.
- Please use %{buildroot} instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- You could create a marco for the coq version. So you dont have to maintain it
on two places (Line 21 & 26 ).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719152] Review Request: gappalib-coq - Coq support library for gappa
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719152 Markus Mayer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lotharl...@gmx.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lotharl...@gmx.de Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Markus Mayer 2011-10-29 05:03:28 EDT --- Hi Jerry, I am taking this. Maybe you want to review a package of mine: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737263 Regards, Markus -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719152] Review Request: gappalib-coq - Coq support library for gappa
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719152 --- Comment #1 from Jerry James 2011-10-26 17:55:03 EDT --- I have split out a -devel subpackage as was done with flocq. New URLs: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gappalib-coq/gappalib-coq.spec http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gappalib-coq/gappalib-coq-0.16.0-2.fc15.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719152] Review Request: gappalib-coq - Coq support library for gappa
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719152 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||719150 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
