[Bug 528461] Review Request: ocaml-fieldslib - OCaml library for folding over record fields

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528461

Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> 2010-11-01 20:30:13 EDT ---
Builds fine and rpmlint has only the expected no-binary complaint.

As expected for a review ticket this old, there are some lines in the spec
which are unneeded on modern Fedora (BuildRoot:, cleaning of buildroot in
%install, and for F13+ the entire %clean section).  I suggest removing them
unless you're targeting EPEL.

There's a test.ml in the sample directory; it doesn't seem to do much, but it
does get built as part of the regular build which I guess implies that at least
the syntax extension builds.  I don't suppose it would do much good to run it
somewhere, though.

The LICENSE file is unnecessarily duplicated, but meh.

This is a syntax extension, so the .cmo file should be OK in the main package.

Looks good enough to me.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
   bd999bebadd344c83928ef2cddb65112587d808143a3f38736c994bf0b12ade6
    fieldslib-0.1.0.tgz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint has only acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  ocaml-fieldslib-0.1.0-2.fc15.x86_64.rpm
   ocaml(Fieldslib) = 6166d2ad0c577e8e7dd95f48377278fc
   ocaml(Pa_fields_conv) = bb52643b3d15a0f4be959a2e45d53683
   ocaml-fieldslib = 0.1.0-2.fc15
   ocaml-fieldslib(x86-64) = 0.1.0-2.fc15
  =
   ocaml(Arg) = b6513be035dc9c8a458c189cd8841700
   ocaml(Array) = 9c9fa5f11e2d6992c427dde4d1168489
   ocaml(Buffer) = 0ce5de86183a833ed112488a1e6d281d
   ocaml(Camlp4) = bb930f7c2bed5d057c794fe07dc8596a
   ocaml(Camlp4_config) = 80b5d58834366711574a5ec4dfb123fd
   ocaml(Camlp4_import) = 4d17b58763ba1f0aac92fd5dbb558b59
   ocaml(Char) = 3da72249626c7db769beafc97036cb4f
   ocaml(Filename) = 9d7d89d76fb7c750cebd9ea5578bba67
   ocaml(Format) = 294246d2bcc3b8adc89bd48bff122c7e
   ocaml(Hashtbl) = ee2a3220e38a4350c5bc131ce9f3f6ce
   ocaml(Int32) = b2545c419b6b6a173cac4c0a3e7e0277
   ocaml(Int64) = d501d6e89fdce41c79f274fb464995d5
   ocaml(Lexing) = 4d17267334f1a6c75730dc3fae21fb9b
   ocaml(List) = a0e2e49d266ff302f8667651a43f71ba
   ocaml(ListLabels) = 2c45a4e52fd403ad1dcf75f09e4cac27
   ocaml(Nativeint) = 7233ce5207a538fea4f0c61ed411ea2c
   ocaml(Obj) = 57b3fe2fcfe45ee25709b8ae556264d1
   ocaml(Parsing) = 29c3f123280f8e6e639cfb025b3c9a3f
   ocaml(Pa_type_conv) = 917c39ac24d30438f1e78e6e58840e45
   ocaml(Pervasives) = 88cb1505c8bdf9a4dcd2cdf3452732b4
   ocaml(Printf) = 807ecd3a1538992580464c03462c9964
   ocaml(Queue) = 56b5e04dcda600ae0cdf49a37f17fcd9
   ocaml(Set) = c4be5d24d30c129dd60d2739e54db7dd
   ocaml(Stream) = 91a43ea7fb16bf36f3f10c0dc7d08a0e
   ocaml(String) = ecc403546c1c50056801131811c39017
   ocaml(Sys) = 21bf525b2b3f3a46a54b96163adfe387
   ocaml(runtime) = 3.11.2

  ocaml-fieldslib-devel-0.1.0-2.fc15.x86_64.rpm
   ocaml-fieldslib-devel = 0.1.0-2.fc15
   ocaml-fieldslib-devel(x86-64) = 0.1.0-2.fc15
  =
   ocaml-fieldslib = 0.1.0-2.fc15

* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* .cma, .cmi, .so, .so.owner, META files in the main package.
* .a, .cmxa, .cmx and .mli files are in the -devel subpackage.

APPROVED

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.