New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml

[Richard W.M. Jones]

I've started a page for updating the packaging guidelines.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml

At the moment it's a straight copy of the packaging guidelines except
that I've updated 'ocaml-foolib.spec' from my private copy of that
file.

Some ideas:

- how useful is the whole '%opt' stuff now that we have native
   compilation on every Fedora architecture?

- use of chrpath and strip

- should we finally distribute ocaml-find-requires/provides with
   upstream RPM?  They haven't changed in a long time.

- note about some common rpmlint errors:
   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433783

- ISO-8859-1 - should we ban it from *.ml & *.mli files?
   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434694

- camlp4/camlp5 syntax extensions are a bit different from a
   distribution point of view.  They usually don't need a -devel
   package, and they require *.cmo files to be distributed.
   And sometimes they should be noarch.
   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435431
   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435299
   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435293

Rich.

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 03:05:48PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I've started a page for updating the packaging guidelines.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml
>
> At the moment it's a straight copy of the packaging guidelines except
> that I've updated 'ocaml-foolib.spec' from my private copy of that
> file.
>
> Some ideas:
>
> how useful is the whole '%opt' stuff now that we have native
> compilation on every Fedora architecture?
>
> use of chrpath and strip
>
> should we finally distribute ocaml-find-requires/provides with
> upstream RPM?  They haven't changed in a long time.
>
> note about some common rpmlint errors:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433783
>
> ISO-8859-1 - should we ban it from *.ml & *.mli files?
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434694
>
> camlp4/camlp5 syntax extensions are a bit different from a
> distribution point of view.  They usually don't need a -devel
> package, and they require *.cmo files to be distributed.
> And sometimes they should be noarch.
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435431
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435299
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435293

And while I remember:

- ocaml-pcre-devel pulls in ocaml-pcre and pcre.
   However it doesn't pull in pcre-devel, so you cannot actually
   'devel'op software with this package: programs will fail to link
   because of missing -lpcre.  This may be a general problem with
   all our packages which use C libs, although for some reason
   I've only hit it with this one.

Rich.

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 03:38:11PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 03:05:48PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > I've started a page for updating the packaging guidelines.
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml
> >
> > At the moment it's a straight copy of the packaging guidelines except
> > that I've updated 'ocaml-foolib.spec' from my private copy of that
> > file.
> >
> > Some ideas:
> >
> > how useful is the whole '%opt' stuff now that we have native
> > compilation on every Fedora architecture?
> >
> > use of chrpath and strip
> >
> > should we finally distribute ocaml-find-requires/provides with
> > upstream RPM?  They haven't changed in a long time.
> >
> > note about some common rpmlint errors:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433783
> >
> > ISO-8859-1 - should we ban it from *.ml & *.mli files?
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434694
> >
> > camlp4/camlp5 syntax extensions are a bit different from a
> > distribution point of view.  They usually don't need a -devel
> > package, and they require *.cmo files to be distributed.
> > And sometimes they should be noarch.
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435431
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435299
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435293
>
> And while I remember:
> ocaml-pcre-devel pulls in ocaml-pcre and pcre.
> However it doesn't pull in pcre-devel, so you cannot actually
> 'devel'op software with this package: programs will fail to link
> because of missing -lpcre.  This may be a general problem with
> all our packages which use C libs, although for some reason
> I've only hit it with this one.

And:

- certain binaries should not be stripped
   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435559

Rich.

[David Woodhouse]

On Sat, 2008-03-01 at 17:01 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> And:
> certain binaries should not be stripped
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435559

That's a bad way to phrase the problem, surely? It's OCaml doing
something 'strange' which make stripping break, almost certainly -- we
should fix that instead.

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 05:01:08PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 03:38:11PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 03:05:48PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > I've started a page for updating the packaging guidelines.
> > >
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml
> > >
> > > At the moment it's a straight copy of the packaging guidelines except
> > > that I've updated 'ocaml-foolib.spec' from my private copy of that
> > > file.
> > >
> > > Some ideas:
> > >
> > > how useful is the whole '%opt' stuff now that we have native
> > > compilation on every Fedora architecture?
> > >
> > > use of chrpath and strip
> > >
> > > should we finally distribute ocaml-find-requires/provides with
> > > upstream RPM?  They haven't changed in a long time.
> > >
> > > note about some common rpmlint errors:
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433783
> > >
> > > ISO-8859-1 - should we ban it from *.ml & *.mli files?
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434694
> > >
> > > camlp4/camlp5 syntax extensions are a bit different from a
> > > distribution point of view.  They usually don't need a -devel
> > > package, and they require *.cmo files to be distributed.
> > > And sometimes they should be noarch.
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435431
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435299
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435293
> >
> > And while I remember:
> > ocaml-pcre-devel pulls in ocaml-pcre and pcre.
> > However it doesn't pull in pcre-devel, so you cannot actually
> > 'devel'op software with this package: programs will fail to link
> > because of missing -lpcre.  This may be a general problem with
> > all our packages which use C libs, although for some reason
> > I've only hit it with this one.
>
> And:
> certain binaries should not be stripped
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435559

And:

- Clarify where documentation should go.  Currently my practice has
   been to put just the license file (if any) in the main package's %doc,
   and the license file plus all other documentation & examples in
   the devel subpackage.  This duplicates (only) the license file, but
   that seems acceptable since we shouldn't distribute software without
   its license.

Rich.

[Fedora-packaging] Re: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml

[Tom Callaway]

On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 16:53 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Clarify where documentation should go.  Currently my practice has
> been to put just the license file (if any) in the main package's %doc,
> and the license file plus all other documentation & examples in
> the devel subpackage.  This duplicates (only) the license file, but
> that seems acceptable since we shouldn't distribute software without
> its license.

-devel packages should Require the main package, thus, there really
isn't any need for the duplicate license copy.

~spot

[Fedora-packaging] New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml

[Hans de Goede]

Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I've started a page for updating the packaging guidelines.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml
>
> At the moment it's a straight copy of the packaging guidelines except
> that I've updated 'ocaml-foolib.spec' from my private copy of that
> file.
>
> Some ideas:
> how useful is the whole '%opt' stuff now that we have native
> compilation on every Fedora architecture?

Keep in mind that people are working hard to get secondary arches of the 
ground, so I vote to keep it in.
> use of chrpath and strip

I don't see this anywhere in:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml

Explain?
> should we finally distribute ocaml-find-requires/provides with
> upstream RPM?  They haven't changed in a long time.

+1
> note about some common rpmlint errors:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433783

Good work on trying to get rpmlint ocaml aware, but how is this relevant for 
the guidelines, other then maybe adding a section about which warnings may be 
ignored
> ISO-8859-1 - should we ban it from *.ml & *.mli files?
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434694

I wouldn't do that if the language explicitly allows using non ascii codes in 
identifiers, and also dictates use of a certain codepage for this, then we 
should respect this.
> camlp4/camlp5 syntax extensions are a bit different from a
> distribution point of view.  They usually don't need a -devel
> package, and they require *.cmo files to be distributed.
> And sometimes they should be noarch.
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435431

Erm I don't see any .cmo files in the filelist for this one?

Regards,

Hans

[Fedora-packaging] New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 04:48:02PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> I don't see this anywhere in:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml
>
> Explain?

Sorry, I should have been clearer: these are problems I've identified.
I haven't edited the page yet :-)

Rich.

UPDATED: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml

[Richard W.M. Jones]

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml

Diff from the previous version:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml?action=diff&rev2=2&...

Comments etc. welcome.

Rich.

[Fedora-packaging] UPDATED: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml

[Hans de Goede]

Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml
>
> Diff from the previous version:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml?action=diff&rev2=2&...
>
> Comments etc. welcome.

Looks very good,

FPC, I would like to suggest we discuss (and maybe approve) this on our next 
meeting.

Regards,

Hans

[Fedora-packaging] UPDATED: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml

[Hans de Goede]

Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml
>
> Diff from the previous version:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml?action=diff&rev2=2&...
>
> Comments etc. welcome.
>
> Rich.

p.s.

Rich, in my last mail I sortof assumed that this is ready for FPC discussion, 
is it?

UPDATED: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml

[Peter Lemenkov]

Hello All!

2008/3/5, Richard W.M. Jones :
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml
>
> Diff from the previous version:
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml?action=diff&rev2=2&...
>
> Comments etc. welcome.

Looks sane.

UPDATED: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml

[David Woodhouse]

On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 18:14 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml
>
> Diff from the previous version:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml?action=diff&rev2=2&...

It doesn't address multilib. For example, the -devel packages should
require ocaml of the _same_ architecture, not just "ocaml".

In particular, the example that "ocaml-pcre-devel needs an explicit
'Requires: pcre-devel'" is wrong, because an i386 pcre-devel package
would satisfy that, while not being particularly useful for an x86_64
ocaml-pcre-devel.

Because of bug #235755 you may need to use virtual provides or
file-based dependencies to express the dependencies correctly.
Unless we put 235755 on the F9Blocker... :)

UPDATED: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 08:49:51AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> It doesn't address multilib. For example, the -devel packages should
> require ocaml of the _same_ architecture, not just "ocaml".
>
> In particular, the example that "ocaml-pcre-devel needs an explicit
> 'Requires: pcre-devel'" is wrong, because an i386 pcre-devel package
> would satisfy that, while not being particularly useful for an x86_64
> ocaml-pcre-devel.

Right -- I now understand the problem.  See for example my email here:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2008-March/msg00105.html

What I _don't_ understand is how to fix this ...  Obviously bug 235755
("rpm doesn't allow 'Requires: foo.%{ARCH}'") would be an ideal fix.
In the absence of that can someone suggest a workable scheme?

I can add file deps, I think, to solve this:

In ocaml-pcre-devel:
    Requires: %{_libdir}/ocaml/pcre/  (get the right ocaml-pcre)
    Requires: %{_libdir}/libpcre.a    (instead of pcre-devel)

would seem to fix this, at the cost of downloading the filelists.
> Because of bug #235755 you may need to use virtual provides or
> file-based dependencies to express the dependencies correctly.
> Unless we put 235755 on the F9Blocker... :)

For reference:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=235755

Rich.