[Bug 1172771] New: Review Request: ocaml-cmdliner - OCaml library for dealing with command line arguments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771
Bug ID: 1172771 Summary: Review Request: ocaml-cmdliner - OCaml library for dealing with command line arguments Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jon@recoil.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-cmdliner.spec SRPM URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-cmdliner-0.9.6-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Cmdliner is an OCaml module for the declarative definition of command line interfaces. It provides a simple and compositional mechanism to convert command line arguments to OCaml values and pass them to your functions. The module automatically handles syntax errors, help messages and UNIX man page generation. It supports programs with single or multiple commands (like darcs or git) and respects most of the POSIX and GNU conventions.
Fedora Account System Username: jonludlam
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771
--- Comment #1 from Jon Ludlam jon@recoil.org --- The guide for submitting these review requests suggests that I point out this is my first submission and that I need a sponsor. I'm hoping Richard W.M. Jones will help me out here!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771
Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |vascom2@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- Please correct debuginfo package rpmlint error:
ocaml-cmdliner-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771
--- Comment #3 from Jon Ludlam jon@recoil.org --- Thanks Vasiliy. Should I bump the release number when I do?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771
--- Comment #4 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- Yes. And create new post with updated Spec URL and SRPM URL. It must contain changes.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ludlam jon@recoil.org --- Fixed, thanks.
Spec URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-cmdliner.spec SRPM URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-cmdliner-0.9.6-2.fc21.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ludlam jon@recoil.org --- Also, koji link: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8348613
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rjones@redhat.com
--- Comment #7 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com --- In general, the spec file looks OK. I can't find any specific problem to point out.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1185099
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185099 [Bug 1185099] Review Request: opam - A source-based package manager for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771
--- Comment #8 from Jon Ludlam jon@recoil.org --- As for uutf and jsonm, I've now included a license file explicitly in the SRPM.
Spec URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-cmdliner.spec SRPM URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-cmdliner-0.9.6-3.fc21.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |michel@michel-slm.name Flags| |needinfo?
--- Comment #9 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- Hi everyone,
What's the status on this?
Richard, your update to js-of-ocaml is actually breaking because of a dependency on ocaml-cmdliner.
Jon - would be happy to sponsor if you're still interested in packaging this. Let me know and I'll then proceed with a formal review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
--- Comment #10 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- ps apologies for the delay - am guessing it's partly because the NEEDSPONSOR tracker wasn't depended on, so potential sponsors didn't see this.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |abeekhof@redhat.com Flags|needinfo? |needinfo?(abeekhof@redhat.c | |om)
--- Comment #11 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com --- Andrew, do you want to review this?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771
--- Comment #12 from Jon Ludlam jon@recoil.org --- Two new versions have been released since I made this - let me update it to the latest version before anyone has a look.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771
--- Comment #13 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- jonludlam's scratch build of ocaml-cmdliner-0.9.8-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11536701
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771
--- Comment #14 from Jon Ludlam jon@recoil.org --- OK, updated.
Spec URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-cmdliner.spec SRPM URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-cmdliner-0.9.8-1.fc23.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771
Andrew Beekhof abeekhof@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(abeekhof@redhat.c | |om) |
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Beekhof abeekhof@redhat.com --- Rich, absolutely. Unless it cant wait until after the openstack summit. I wont get a lot done while I'm there :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771
--- Comment #16 from Jon Ludlam jon@recoil.org --- Hi Andrew, any update on this review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Beekhof abeekhof@redhat.com --- Its probably best if someone else takes this. Too many daily "emergencies" on my end.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771
--- Comment #18 from Jon Ludlam jon@recoil.org --- Ack, I know that feeling :-( Good luck with them!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |loganjerry@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |loganjerry@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #19 from Jerry James loganjerry@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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771
--- Comment #20 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Jon, are you still interested in pursuing this review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771
--- Comment #21 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- This review is stalled. Jon, please respond within one week if you intend to continue with this review.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Flags|fedora-review? | Last Closed| |2016-04-03 11:53:12
--- Comment #22 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- I waited much longer than a week with no response. I am closing this review due to an unresponsive submitter. For those concerned about js-of-ocaml and opam, note that the missing dependency is now not even proposed for review.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor 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.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla