[Bug 1172771] Review Request: ocaml-cmdliner - OCaml library for dealing with command line arguments

Fri Feb 12 20:32:00 UTC 2016

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771

Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |loganjerry at gmail.com
           Assignee|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |loganjerry at gmail.com
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #19 from Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com> ---
I can take this review.  Jon, do you still need a sponsor?

Package Review
==============

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

Issues:
=======
- 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.
  Note: License file LICENSE is marked as %doc instead of %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
- SHOULD issue: has upstream been approached about including a separate license
  file in the distribution?
- SHOULD issue: A short note about the patch (e.g., "# Enable building with
  debuginfo") would help others who look at the spec file
- SHOULD issue: the source distribution includes a test directory.  Is a %check
  script possible?
- SHOULD issue: Pass the -p flag (or -a) to cp when copying source files to
  preserve timestamps; this is the case with the first cp command in %install.
- Very minor issue: The comment in %files about the "following line" doesn't
  really refer to the following line.  I found that confusing for a second or
  two.
- Consider adding this to avoid producing an empty -debuginfo rpm on
  architectures with no native compiler:

%ifnarch %{ocaml_native_compiler}
%global debug_package %{nil}
%endif

===== 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: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 21 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/1172771
     -ocaml-cmdliner/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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[x]: 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.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ocaml-cmdliner-0.9.8-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
          ocaml-cmdliner-devel-0.9.8-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
          ocaml-cmdliner-debuginfo-0.9.8-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
          ocaml-cmdliner-0.9.8-1.fc24.src.rpm
ocaml-cmdliner.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compositional ->
com positional, com-positional, composition
ocaml-cmdliner.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US darcs -> cards,
arcs, dares
ocaml-cmdliner-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ocaml-cmdliner.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compositional ->
com positional, com-positional, composition
ocaml-cmdliner.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US darcs -> cards,
arcs, dares
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

Requires
--------
ocaml-cmdliner-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ocaml-cmdliner(x86-64)

ocaml-cmdliner (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    ocaml(Array)
    ocaml(Buffer)
    ocaml(CamlinternalFormatBasics)
    ocaml(CamlinternalLazy)
    ocaml(Char)
    ocaml(Filename)
    ocaml(Format)
    ocaml(Int32)
    ocaml(Int64)
    ocaml(Lazy)
    ocaml(List)
    ocaml(Map)
    ocaml(Nativeint)
    ocaml(Pervasives)
    ocaml(Printexc)
    ocaml(Printf)
    ocaml(String)
    ocaml(Sys)
    ocaml(runtime)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

ocaml-cmdliner-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

Provides
--------
ocaml-cmdliner-devel:
    ocaml-cmdliner-devel
    ocaml-cmdliner-devel(x86-64)

ocaml-cmdliner:
    ocaml(Cmdliner)
    ocaml-cmdliner
    ocaml-cmdliner(x86-64)

ocaml-cmdliner-debuginfo:
    ocaml-cmdliner-debuginfo
    ocaml-cmdliner-debuginfo(x86-64)

Source checksums
----------------
http://erratique.ch/software/cmdliner/releases/cmdliner-0.9.8.tbz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
7dfaafdd88ec9d96abf8ded4c0ea7111948194400220a56e4bb44a1edfa4bd41
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
7dfaafdd88ec9d96abf8ded4c0ea7111948194400220a56e4bb44a1edfa4bd41

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1172771 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -x
CheckOwnDirs
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Ocaml, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Perl, R, PHP,
Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

-- 
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