[Bug 1553835] Review Request: utop - Improved toplevel for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553835 Sergey Avseyevchanged: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2018-03-16 11:49:18 -- 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 1553835] Review Request: utop - Improved toplevel for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553835 --- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla--- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/utop -- 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 1553835] Review Request: utop - Improved toplevel for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553835 --- Comment #8 from Sergey Avseyev--- Thank you, Ben. -- 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 1553835] Review Request: utop - Improved toplevel for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553835 Ben Rosserchanged: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Ben Rosser --- Great! Package is approved. 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: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 38 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bjr/Programming/fedora/reviews/1553835-utop/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. [-]: 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]: 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 = 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 utop- devel I think this is a false positive, as the dependency is definitely there in the spec and rpm -qpR confirms it. So, you can ignore this. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should
[Bug 1553835] Review Request: utop - Improved toplevel for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553835 --- Comment #6 from Sergey Avseyev--- I agree, and I checked that *.mli files are not necessary for utop to run. I moved them into -devel and put versions on Provides tags. Spec URL: https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/utop/1/utop.spec SRPM URL: https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/utop/1/utop-2.1.0-1.fc29.src.rpm Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25737349 -- 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 1553835] Review Request: utop - Improved toplevel for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553835 --- Comment #5 from Ben Rosser--- Great! Just two things; otherwise the package looks fine: > utop.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ocaml/utop/uTop.mli > utop.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/ocaml/utop/uTop_complete.mli > utop.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/ocaml/utop/uTop_history.mli > utop.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/ocaml/utop/uTop_lexer.mli > utop.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/ocaml/utop/uTop_main.mli > utop.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/ocaml/utop/uTop_private.ml > utop.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/ocaml/utop/uTop_styles.mli > utop.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/ocaml/utop/uTop_token.ml I wasn't sure about this when I was looking at utop myself. Does utop depend on these include files to function? Or should they be moved off into a -devel package? Also from rpmlint: > utop.src:21: W: unversioned-explicit-provides ocaml-%{name} I don't think there is any harm in making this versioned, to make rpmlint slightly happier. -- 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 1553835] Review Request: utop - Improved toplevel for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553835 Sergey Avseyevchanged: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: ocaml-utop |Review Request: utop - |- Improved toplevel for |Improved toplevel for OCaml |OCaml | --- Comment #4 from Sergey Avseyev --- I've renamed package and applied other notes: Spec URL: https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/utop/0/utop.spec SRPM URL: https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/utop/0/utop-2.1.0-1.fc29.src.rpm Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25585813 -- 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