https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652712
Bug ID: 1652712 Summary: Review Request: ocaml-lwt-log - Lwt logging library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide 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
Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/lwt/ocaml-lwt-log.spec SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/lwt/ocaml-lwt-log-1.1.0-1.fc28.src.rpm
Description: Lwt-friendly logging library.
Fedora Account System Username: tc01
According to upstream, lwt_log is "deprecated". However, it's currently a necessary dependency of ocaml-lambda-term 1.13, and we need to update to 1.13 in Fedora to fix a FTBFS. So this package probably is just needed for the short term.
I couldn't get the buildsystem to generate debuginfo, for some reason-- but I decided I wasn't too worried about that because this package probably isn't going to be needed for forever.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652712
Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1651089
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1651089 [Bug 1651089] ocaml-lambda-term-1.13 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652712
Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1651089 Depends On|1651089 |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1651089 [Bug 1651089] ocaml-lambda-term-1.13 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652712
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 #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com ---
I couldn't get the buildsystem to generate debuginfo, for some reason-- but I decided I wasn't too worried about that because this package probably isn't going to be needed for forever.
Remove:
# Hm... I'm not sure why this package won't generate debuginfo. # lwt-log is technically "deprecated"; the lwt logger was moved into # another package (ocaml-logs): http://erratique.ch/software/logs
# So eventually this package should be able to go away. So I # don't think it's a huge problem. %global debug_package %{nil}
And add in %install:
# Makes *.cmxs executable such that they will be stripped. find %{buildroot} -name '*.cmxs' -exec chmod 0755 {} ;
- License is wrong, it is LGPLv2+ not BSD.
- Patch these with the new FSF address in %prep, and send the patch upstream:
ocaml-lwt-log-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib64/ocaml/lwt_log/core/lwt_log_core.mli ocaml-lwt-log-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib64/ocaml/lwt_log/core/lwt_log_rules.mli ocaml-lwt-log-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib64/ocaml/lwt_log/lwt_daemon.mli ocaml-lwt-log-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib64/ocaml/lwt_log/lwt_log.mli
- No need to reinclude the license here as the devel subpackage depends on the main package:
%files devel %license COPYING
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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1)", "GNU Lesser General Public License", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ocaml- lwt-log/review-ocaml-lwt-log/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. [!]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ocaml- lwt-log-debuginfo , ocaml-lwt-log-debugsource [?]: 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-lwt-log-1.1.0-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm ocaml-lwt-log-devel-1.1.0-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm ocaml-lwt-log-debuginfo-1.1.0-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm ocaml-lwt-log-debugsource-1.1.0-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm ocaml-lwt-log-1.1.0-1.fc30.src.rpm ocaml-lwt-log-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ocaml-lwt-log-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib64/ocaml/lwt_log/core/lwt_log_core.mli ocaml-lwt-log-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib64/ocaml/lwt_log/core/lwt_log_rules.mli ocaml-lwt-log-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib64/ocaml/lwt_log/lwt_daemon.mli ocaml-lwt-log-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib64/ocaml/lwt_log/lwt_log.mli 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652712
--- Comment #2 from Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com --- Thanks for taking a look!
# Makes *.cmxs executable such that they will be stripped.
Aha. Indeed, that fixes it. :)
- License is wrong, it is LGPLv2+ not BSD.
Oops... my bad. Fixed.
- No need to reinclude the license here as the devel subpackage depends on the main package
Fixed.
- Patch these with the new FSF address in %prep, and send the patch upstream:
Fixed. I"m not sure upstream will care (since this is "deprecated", as I mentioned)-- but I can at least send it to them.
Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/lwt/ocaml-lwt-log.spec SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/lwt/ocaml-lwt-log-1.1.0-2.fc28.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652712
--- Comment #3 from Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com --- Upstream ticket opened:
https://github.com/ocsigen/lwt_log/issues/1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652712
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 --- Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652712
--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ocaml-lwt-log
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com