[Bug 870522] Review Request: ocaml-zarith - OCaml interface to GMP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- ocaml-zarith-1.1-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7jrHGNTqsN&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870522] Review Request: ocaml-zarith - OCaml interface to GMP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-12-20 10:06:00 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1B8J3CKiQ2&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870522] Review Request: ocaml-zarith - OCaml interface to GMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- 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 870522] Review Request: ocaml-zarith - OCaml interface to GMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- ocaml-zarith-1.1-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- 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 870522] Review Request: ocaml-zarith - OCaml interface to GMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870522] Review Request: ocaml-zarith - OCaml interface to GMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- ocaml-zarith-1.1-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ocaml-zarith-1.1-2.fc18 -- 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 870522] Review Request: ocaml-zarith - OCaml interface to GMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522 Ivan Romanov changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dr...@land.ru -- 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 870522] Review Request: ocaml-zarith - OCaml interface to GMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Ivan, please take ownership of review BZs, thanks! -- 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 870522] Review Request: ocaml-zarith - OCaml interface to GMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Jerry James --- Thanks for the review, Ivan. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ocaml-zarith Short Description: OCaml interface to GMP Owners: jjames Branches: f18 InitialCC: -- 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 870522] Review Request: ocaml-zarith - OCaml interface to GMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rjo...@redhat.com --- Comment #12 from Richard W.M. Jones --- Rightly or wrongly, I've been deleting the Group tag from RPM spec files as often as I can. -- 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 870522] Review Request: ocaml-zarith - OCaml interface to GMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
Ivan Romanov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Ivan Romanov ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[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.
[-]: Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
Note: ocaml-zarith-devel-1.1-2.fc19.i686.rpm :
/usr/lib/ocaml/zarith/libzarith.a ocaml-zarith-devel-1.1-2.fc19.i686.rpm
: /usr/lib/ocaml/zarith/zarith.a
It's OK because ocaml packages have exception
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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[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 %doc.
[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". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/taurus/870522-Packaging_OCaml_ocaml-foolib/srpm
/review-ocaml-zarith/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
no -debuginfo package because it's impossible to get this for ocaml
packages
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[-]: 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]: Dist
[Bug 870522] Review Request: ocaml-zarith - OCaml interface to GMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522 --- Comment #10 from Ivan Romanov --- So. I think that using of Group tag it is an extra advantage. It will usefule for somebody who uses rpm -qi and looks at Group. Unspecified will confuse him. So it's a good practice to always fill the tag. But the tag is really optional. And I can't block review by this reason. So in the near time you will get a full review for the package. -- 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 870522] Review Request: ocaml-zarith - OCaml interface to GMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522 Ivan Romanov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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 870522] Review Request: ocaml-zarith - OCaml interface to GMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522 --- Comment #9 from Jerry James --- Lots of packages and wiki examples still have Group tags from the days when they were still used. The Group tag is no longer used. It has been replaced by comps; see https://fedorahosted.org/comps/. This is the official Fedora policy on the Group tag: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag. My package is in compliance with that policy. Please take ownership of this bug. Up at the top, where it says: "Assigned To: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it (edit) (take)", click on the "(take)". Also, set the status below as "Assigned". See step 3 of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer. -- 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 870522] Review Request: ocaml-zarith - OCaml interface to GMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522 --- Comment #8 from Ivan Romanov --- I've looked at fedora ocaml-* packages. They use Group: Development/Libraries for both main and devel subpackage. Furthemore you can look at https://fedoraproject.org/w/uploads/5/5c/Packaging_OCaml_ocaml-foolib.spec it has Group too. So you should to use such group too. -- 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 870522] Review Request: ocaml-zarith - OCaml interface to GMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522 --- Comment #7 from Jerry James --- (In reply to comment #5) > It's weird for me ocaml-zarith doesn't provide debuginfo package. No OCaml package does. Our toolchain can't handle OCaml source files yet, even though the OCaml compiler does produce usable debug information with version 4.00.0 and later. I hope we can have debuginfo packages in the not-too-distant future, but right now it isn't possible. (In reply to comment #6) > Group is unspecified. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag. -- 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 870522] Review Request: ocaml-zarith - OCaml interface to GMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522 --- Comment #6 from Ivan Romanov --- Group is unspecified. -- 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 870522] Review Request: ocaml-zarith - OCaml interface to GMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522 --- Comment #5 from Ivan Romanov --- It's weird for me ocaml-zarith doesn't provide debuginfo package. -- 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 870522] Review Request: ocaml-zarith - OCaml interface to GMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522 Ivan Romanov changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- 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 870522] Review Request: ocaml-zarith - OCaml interface to GMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522 --- Comment #4 from Jerry James --- Sure, I'm happy to swap reviews. Thanks! -- 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 870522] Review Request: ocaml-zarith - OCaml interface to GMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||872020 -- 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 870522] Review Request: ocaml-zarith - OCaml interface to GMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522 --- Comment #3 from Ivan Romanov --- I can make a review for your package. Can you take my package review process? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871037 librcc - RusXMMS Charset Conversion Library -- 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 870522] Review Request: ocaml-zarith - OCaml interface to GMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
Thanks for the comments, Ivan.
(In reply to comment #1)
> Drop BR ocaml (ocaml-ocamldoc will pull it when building)
It is redundant, true, but I prefer to keep that particular BR since this is an
ocaml package, so having an explicit BR on the package that provides the
compiler and runtime seems like a good thing to me.
> Ise %{?_isa} for devel subpackage
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/
> Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
Good catch. I have fixed this.
> static library must be in static subpackage
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/
> Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
Except for the case of OCaml packages. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml, and the section entitled
"-devel subpackage" in particular.
New URLs:
http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-zarith/ocaml-zarith.spec
http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-zarith/ocaml-zarith-1.1-2.fc19.src.rpm
--
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 870522] Review Request: ocaml-zarith - OCaml interface to GMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
Ivan Romanov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dr...@land.ru
--- Comment #1 from Ivan Romanov ---
Drop BR ocaml (ocaml-ocamldoc will pull it when building)
Ise %{?_isa} for devel subpackage
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
static library must be in static subpackage
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
--
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
