[Bug 1266011] New: Review Request: ocaml-re - Pure OCaml regular expressions with support for Perl and POSIX-style strings

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266011

Bug ID: 1266011
           Summary: Review Request: ocaml-re - Pure OCaml regular
                    expressions with support for Perl and POSIX-style
                    strings
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
         Component: Package Review
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]

Spec URL: http://cicku.me/ocaml-re.spec
SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/ocaml-re-1.4.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Re is a regular expression library for OCaml. It has better
performance comparing with PCRE in some cases.

The following styles of regular expressions are supported:

* Perl-style regular expressions;
* Posix extended regular expressions;
* Emacs-style regular expressions;
* Shell-style file globbing.

Fedora Account System Username: cicku

[Bug 1266011] Review Request: ocaml-re - Pure OCaml regular expressions with support for Perl and POSIX-style strings

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266011

Richard Shaw  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #1 from Richard Shaw  ---
Ok, this is my first ocaml review so I have a few questions...

1. Under the OCaml packaging guidelines I see there should be some macros
set[1]:

%global _use_internal_dependency_generator 0
%global __find_requires /usr/lib/rpm/ocaml-find-requires.sh
%global __find_provides /usr/lib/rpm/ocaml-find-provides.sh

Per the example spec file, these should go between BuildRequires and
%description. Is there I reason your package doesn't need these? In the
requires output from fedora-review I don't see the MD5hash as part of the
requirement so I'm thinking you do need this.

2. I Don't see a "make opt" or the test at the top of the spec. Does this
library not support byte-code only arches?

3. I assume these are not stripped per the OCaml guidelines[2] because they
would not function?

ocaml-re.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/ocaml/re/re_str.cmxs
ocaml-re.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/ocaml/re/re_glob.cmxs
ocaml-re.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/ocaml/re/re_pcre.cmxs
ocaml-re.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/ocaml/re/re_posix.cmxs
ocaml-re.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/ocaml/re/re.cmxs
ocaml-re.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/ocaml/re/re_emacs.cmxs
ocaml-re.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/ocaml/re/re_perl.cmxs

[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml?rd=Packaging/OCaml#Requires_a...

[2]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml?rd=Packaging/OCaml#Stripping_...

[Bug 1266011] Review Request: ocaml-re - Pure OCaml regular expressions with support for Perl and POSIX-style strings

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266011

--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring  ---
jonludlam's scratch build of ocaml-re-1.4.1-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23 completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11536753

[Bug 1266011] Review Request: ocaml-re - Pure OCaml regular expressions with support for Perl and POSIX-style strings

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266011

Ben Rosser  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
         Resolution|---                         |DUPLICATE
        Last Closed|                            |2018-08-23 11:37:37

--- Comment #3 from Ben Rosser  ---

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1174036 ***