https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183195
Bug ID: 1183195 Summary: Review Request: ocaml-uutf - Non-blocking streaming codec for UTF-8, UTF-16, UTF-16LE and UTF-16BE Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jon@recoil.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-uutf.spec SRPM URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-uutf-0.9.3-4.fc21.src.rpm Description: Uutf is an non-blocking streaming Unicode codec for OCaml to decode and encode the UTF-8, UTF-16, UTF-16LE and UTF-16BE encoding schemes. It can efficiently work character by character without blocking on IO. Decoders perform character position tracking and support newline normalization.
Functions are also provided to fold over the characters of UTF encoded OCaml string values and to directly encode characters in OCaml Buffer.t values.
Uutf is made of a single, independent, module and distributed under the BSD license.
Fedora Account System Username: jonludlam
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183195
--- Comment #1 from Jon Ludlam jon@recoil.org --- koji link: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8648292
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183195
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rjones@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com --- Patch file should probably be named '<something>.patch'.
You're defining 'native_compiler' but not actually using it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183195
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1183825
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183825 [Bug 1183825] Review Request: ocaml-jsonm - Non-blocking streaming JSON codec for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183195
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1185099
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185099 [Bug 1185099] Review Request: opam - A source-based package manager for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183195
--- Comment #3 from Jon Ludlam jon@recoil.org --- Thanks Richard. Fixed.
Spec URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-uutf.spec SRPM URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-uutf-0.9.3-5.fc21.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183195
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |rjones@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183195
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jon@recoil.org Flags| |needinfo?(jon@recoil.org)
--- Comment #4 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
I think you need to find out from upstream what on earth "BSD3" means, ie. what precise license this is under, check that against the Fedora licenses, and also include a license file in the package.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
Build system looks crazy, so it's probably impossible to use regular %{configure} or %{_smp_mflags}.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: 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. [-]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [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. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist [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.
Ocaml: [x]: This should never happen
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
See comment above.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ocaml-uutf- devel
You probably need to add %{?_isa} as described.
[x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: ocaml-uutf-0.9.3-5.fc21.x86_64.rpm ocaml-uutf-devel-0.9.3-5.fc21.x86_64.rpm ocaml-uutf-0.9.3-5.fc21.src.rpm ocaml-uutf.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> codex, code, codes ocaml-uutf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes ocaml-uutf-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ocaml-uutf.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> codex, code, codes ocaml-uutf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Requires -------- ocaml-uutf-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml-uutf
ocaml-uutf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) ocaml(Array) ocaml(Buffer) ocaml(Char) ocaml(Format) ocaml(Int32) ocaml(Obj) ocaml(Pervasives) ocaml(Printf) ocaml(String) ocaml(runtime) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- ocaml-uutf-devel: ocaml-uutf-devel ocaml-uutf-devel(x86-64)
ocaml-uutf: ocaml(Uutf) ocaml-uutf ocaml-uutf(x86-64)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/dbuenzli/uutf/archive/v0.9.3/uutf-0.9.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 51c8b96b33949397ab6db50029d925400634b41fb74b91db85875e297562788a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 51c8b96b33949397ab6db50029d925400634b41fb74b91db85875e297562788a
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1183195 Buildroot used: fedora-21-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Ocaml, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183195
Jon Ludlam jon@recoil.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(jon@recoil.org) |
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ludlam jon@recoil.org --- Thanks! BSD3 refers to the 3-clause BSD. The license is included in the source repo, but only as comments in the source files rather than as a separate file (e.g. https://github.com/dbuenzli/uutf/blob/master/src/uutf.ml#L779-L810). I have extracted this into a separate file and included it as a new SOURCE. I've also fixed the missing {?_isa}.
Spec URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-uutf.spec SRPM URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-uutf-0.9.3-6.fc21.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183195
--- Comment #6 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- jonludlam's scratch build of ocaml-uutf-0.9.4-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23 failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11536924
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183195
--- Comment #7 from Jon Ludlam jon@recoil.org --- New upstream release.
Spec URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-uutf.spec SRPM URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-uutf-0.9.4-1.fc23.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183195
--- Comment #8 from Jon Ludlam jon@recoil.org --- Koji build failed as it needs ocaml-cmdliner (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183195
--- Comment #9 from Jon Ludlam jon@recoil.org --- It looks like I managed to make the previous version build with koji - I've no idea how any more though :-(
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org