[Bug 1480794] Review Request: ocaml-cudf - Format for describing upgrade scenarios

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480794



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
ocaml-cudf-0.9-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If
problems still persist, 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

[Bug 1480794] Review Request: ocaml-cudf - Format for describing upgrade scenarios

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480794

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-09-11 00:19:54



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
ocaml-cudf-0.9-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If
problems still persist, 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

[Bug 1480794] Review Request: ocaml-cudf - Format for describing upgrade scenarios

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480794



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
ocaml-cudf-0.9-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2017-7d578e4fb3

-- 
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

[Bug 1480794] Review Request: ocaml-cudf - Format for describing upgrade scenarios

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480794

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
ocaml-cudf-0.9-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2017-bc16507ec8

-- 
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

[Bug 1480794] Review Request: ocaml-cudf - Format for describing upgrade scenarios

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480794



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
ocaml-cudf-0.9-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-7d578e4fb3

-- 
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

[Bug 1480794] Review Request: ocaml-cudf - Format for describing upgrade scenarios

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480794



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
ocaml-cudf-0.9-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-bc16507ec8

-- 
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

[Bug 1480794] Review Request: ocaml-cudf - Format for describing upgrade scenarios

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480794

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



-- 
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

[Bug 1480794] Review Request: ocaml-cudf - Format for describing upgrade scenarios

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480794

Ben Rosser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1486068




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486068
[Bug 1486068] Review Request: ocaml-dose3 - Framework for managing
distribution packages and dependencies
-- 
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

[Bug 1480794] Review Request: ocaml-cudf - Format for describing upgrade scenarios

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480794



--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ocaml-cudf

-- 
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

[Bug 1480794] Review Request: ocaml-cudf - Format for describing upgrade scenarios

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480794



--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
You're right I've missed it, I usually look at the %global at the beginning of
the file and didn't see the one in the middle of 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

[Bug 1480794] Review Request: ocaml-cudf - Format for describing upgrade scenarios

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480794



--- Comment #3 from Ben Rosser  ---
Thanks for the review!

I don't wish to sound ungrateful, but I think you missed something:

> %define libname %(echo %{name} | sed -e 's/^ocaml-//')

It is preferred to use "global" over "define" for this sort of thing:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define

However, the OCaml package template (rpmdev-newspec -t ocaml), like most of
those templates, is sadly out of date and still uses %define, and I forgot to
change it before submitting the first batch of reviews. I meant to update this
submission too, but didn't get around to it before you reviewed the package. :)

I will fix this (and the other things you mentioned) on import. But I wanted to
say something here so you're aware that this is something to look for in other
package reviews.

Anyway, thanks again.

-- 
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

[Bug 1480794] Review Request: ocaml-cudf - Format for describing upgrade scenarios

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480794

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Hello,


 - Please use %make_build instead of make when you can:

%make_build
%ifarch %{ocaml_native_compiler}
%make_build opt
%endif

%make_build doc

 - Since the subpackage -devel depends on the main one, it is not necessary to
include a %license COPYING inside its %files section.



Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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: "LGPL (v3 or later)", "LGPL", "Unknown or generated". 68 files
 have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/ocaml-cudf/review-ocaml-
 cudf/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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 245760 bytes in 28 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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

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).

[Bug 1480794] Review Request: ocaml-cudf - Format for describing upgrade scenarios

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480794

Ben Rosser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW)  |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449
[Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter
response should be blocking this bug.
-- 
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

[Bug 1480794] Review Request: ocaml-cudf - Format for describing upgrade scenarios

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480794

Ben Rosser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1183826, 1185099, 201449
   ||(FE-DEADREVIEW)
 CC||j...@recoil.org



--- Comment #1 from Ben Rosser  ---
*** Bug 1183191 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449
[Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter
response should be blocking this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183826
[Bug 1183826] Review Request: ocaml-dose3 - a framework for managing
distribution packages and their dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185099
[Bug 1185099] Review Request: opam - A source-based package manager for
OCaml
-- 
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