[Bug 754245] Review Request: ocaml-menhir - LR(1) parser generator for OCaml

Tue Dec 20 01:11:15 UTC 2011

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=754245

--- Comment #6 from Scott Tsai <scottt.tw at gmail.com> 2011-12-19 20:11:14 EST ---
1. For the License fields, I think we should make
  ocaml-menhir: QPL with exceptions and (LGPLv2+ with exceptions)
  ocaml-menhir-devel: LGPLv2+ with exceptions
the wording of the former I copied from Fedora's main ocaml package.
Those are my best guesses after reviewing the LICENSE file and copyright
headers is source. I'm not comfortable playing copyright lawyer but the
licensing related questions in Fedora's package review checklist sort of forces
the issue.

2. I suggested you get rid of the "OMake cache" files:
  /usr/share/doc/ocaml-menhir-20111019/demos/calc/OMakefile.omc
  /usr/share/doc/ocaml-menhir-20111019/demos/calc/OMakeroot.omc
by modifying the SPEC somewhat like this:
  -# Remove some hidden files
  +# Remove OMake generated files in the upstream tarball
   rm -f demos/calc/.omakedb*
  +rm -f demos/calc/*.omc
the *.omc and .omakedb files are generated when you run omake and were clearly
shipped in the upstream tarball by mistake.

Regarding $RPM_BUILD_ROOT vs. %{buildroot}, it's certainly fine to use you're
preferred style. From reading the Fedora package review list this week, the
later is getting popular in new package submissions. I've always used
RPM_BUILD_ROOT but %{buildroot} grew on me as it makes the lines shorter.

Formal review assuming the license field changes were made:

Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated

==== Generic ====
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
     least one supported architecture.

rawhide koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3594649

[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST 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 %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
The only warning regarding menhir-ocamldep not having a manual page shouldn't
block this.

rpmlint ocaml-menhir-devel-20111019-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm

ocaml-menhir-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

rpmlint ocaml-menhir-20111019-2.fc17.src.rpm

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

rpmlint ocaml-menhir-20111019-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm

ocaml-menhir.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary menhir-ocamldep
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
/home/scottt/work/ocaml-menhir/menhir-20111019.tar.gz :
  MD5SUM this package     : 03ea68c0148142c801d3c0fd3b96ba51
  MD5SUM upstream package : 03ea68c0148142c801d3c0fd3b96ba51

[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
     /usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[ ]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
This is fine.
     Note: Source0:
     http://gallium.inria.fr/~fpottier/menhir/menhir-%{version}.tar.gz
     (menhir-%{version}.tar.gz) Patch0: 0001-Makfile-use-menhir-ocamldep-
     instead-of-ocamldep.wra.patch (0001-Makfile-use-menhir-ocamldep-instead-
     of-ocamldep.wra.patch)
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.

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.