https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1737063
Bug ID: 1737063 Summary: Review Request: ocaml-mmap - File mapping functionality Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rosser.bjr@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/lwt/ocaml-mmap.spec SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/lwt/ocaml-mmap-1.1.0-1.fc30.src.rpm
Description: This project provides a Mmap.map_file functions for mapping files in memory. This function is the same as the Unix.map_file function added in OCaml >= 4.06.
Fedora Account System Username: tc01
This is a simple compatibility/wrapper package. Among other things, it seems to be required to build the "unix" module of ocaml-lwt.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1737063
Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1733750
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733750 [Bug 1733750] ocaml-lwt in Fedora 31 is probably being built wrong
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1737063
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rjones@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com --- Some thoughts before the formal review:
- Usually best to use --profile release with dune, to disable warnings.
- There seems to be a LICENSE file upstream. Is it missing from the tarball? It should be added to the %license section if possible.
- Lines like %{_libdir}/ocaml/*/... are a bit strange (and unsafe). Probably best to use %{_libdir}/ocaml/%{libname}/... instead
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1737063
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Missing isa in -devel:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
- Ask upstream to include the LICENSE file in their archive or include it directly as aSource1
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1)". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ocaml-mmap/review-ocaml- mmap/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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: 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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ocaml- mmap , ocaml-mmap-devel [?]: 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 try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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-mmap-1.1.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm ocaml-mmap-devel-1.1.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm ocaml-mmap-debuginfo-1.1.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm ocaml-mmap-debugsource-1.1.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm ocaml-mmap-1.1.0-1.fc31.src.rpm ocaml-mmap.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ocaml/mmap/mmap.ml ocaml-mmap-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ocaml-mmap.src:35: W: macro-in-comment %jbuilder 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1737063
--- Comment #3 from Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com ---
- Usually best to use --profile release with dune, to disable warnings.
I think "dune build -p" sets profile=release automatically, according to the documentation.
"--root . --only-packages PACKAGE --ignore-promoted-rules --no-config --profile release."
- Lines like %{_libdir}/ocaml/*/... are a bit strange (and unsafe). Probably
best to use %{_libdir}/ocaml/%{libname}/... instead
Good point! Fixed.
- Missing isa in -devel:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Whoops, fixed.
- There seems to be a LICENSE file upstream. Is it missing from the tarball?
It should be added to the %license section if possible.
- Ask upstream to include the LICENSE file in their archive or include it directly as aSource1
I've just switched to the github tarball/tag snapshot, since that includes both the LICENSE and the tests (which I've now switched on in %check).
Here's an updated spec. Let me know if there's anything else that needs changing:
Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/lwt/ocaml-mmap.spec SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/lwt/ocaml-mmap-1.1.0-2.fc30.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1737063
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- LGTM, package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1737063
--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ocaml-mmap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1737063
Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2019-08-07 14:42:06
--- Comment #6 from Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com --- Great, thanks!
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com