Re: [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