https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391
Bug ID: 1055391 Summary: Review Request: ocaml-easy-format - High-level and functional interface to the Format module Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: michel+fdr@sylvestre.me QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/ocaml/ocaml-easy-format.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/ocaml/ocaml-easy-format-1.0.2-1.fc20.s... Description: This module offers a high-level and functional interface to the Format module of the OCaml standard library. It is a pretty-printing facility, i.e. it takes as input some code represented as a tree and formats this code into the most visually satisfying result, breaking and indenting lines of code where appropriate.
Input data must be first modelled and converted into a tree using 3 kinds of nodes:
atoms lists labelled nodes
Atoms represent any text that is guaranteed to be printed as-is. Lists can model any sequence of items such as arrays of data or lists of definitions that are labelled with something like "int main", "let x =" or "x:". Fedora Account System Username: salimma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391
Michel Alexandre Salim michel+fdr@sylvestre.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1055393
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055393 [Bug 1055393] Review Request: ocaml-biniou - Safe and fast binary data format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391
Michel Alexandre Salim michel+fdr@sylvestre.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1055396
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055396 [Bug 1055396] Review Request: ocaml-yojson - An optimized parsing and printing library for the JSON format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |loganjerry@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |loganjerry@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- I will take this one. Would you mind reviewing bug 1021017 in exchange?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Issues, in no particular order:
1) These lines at the top of the spec file:
%global debug_package %{nil} %global _use_internal_dependency_generator 0 %global __find_requires /usr/lib/rpm/ocaml-find-requires.sh %global __find_provides /usr/lib/rpm/ocaml-find-provides.sh
should all be removed. The first is not necessary starting in Fedora 19, and was actively removed from ocaml packages in Fedora 20 (see https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-September/189247.html). The last three lines have not been needed for a very long time; I don't remember now when they became unnecessary, but it was prior to Fedora 19. Also, the strip invocation in %install should be removed, and we need to figure out how to add -g to the compiler flags, probably with something like this in %prep:
sed -i 's/ocamlopt/ocamlopt -g/;s/ocamlc (-[co])/ocamlc -g \1/' Makefile
2) The build seems to need ocaml-findlib only, not ocaml-findlib-devel; i.e., the ocamlfind tool is used, but I don't see any use of the ocaml-findlib library in the source code.
3) Not all architectures support ocaml. Add this to your spec file:
ExclusiveArch: %{ocaml_arches}
4) There is no need to build the bytecode version for architectures that support native code. I suggest changing the make invocation to this, without the leading "make":
%if %opt make %{?_smp_mflags} opt %else make %{?_smp_mflags} %endif
5) Since the packages are arch-specific, the dependency from the -devel subpackage to the main package should include %{?_isa}.
6) Consider adding a %check section. The "make test" invocation just creates output files without checking them for correctness, so that's not sufficient, unless you are just testing for crashes, or the like. There may not be a reasonable test to run. I will leave this to your disgression.
7) The description contains two British English spellings, as noted by the spell checker (see below). American English uses only one 'l' where British English uses two in "modeled" and "labeled".
8) The line:
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
at the top of %install is not needed in Fedora. The versions of RPM in all supported Fedora releases do this already. (If you are thinking of building the package for EPEL, that's another story.)
9) Rpmlint complains about %define libname. I understand that you can't use %global at that location, since %{name} hasn't been defined yet. One solution to that is to use %global, but move the definition farther down in the spec file, perhaps just above %description.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. The flags are missing -g; see issue #1 above. [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. [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. See the spell checker's output below. American English uses only one 'l' where British English uses two: "modeled" and "labeled". See issue #7 above. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. See issue #1 above. [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. This is missing. See issue #3 above. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 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 %doc. [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. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Ocaml: [x]: This should never happen
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. Admittedly, there is almost no scope for parallel building, but can this be added without causing build errors? [-]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ocaml-easy- format-devel Since the packages are arch-specific, please add the %{?_isa} part. See issue #5 above. [x]: 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. See issue #6 above. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define libname %(echo %{name} | sed -e 's/^ocaml-//') See issue #9 above. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [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-easy-format-1.0.2-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm ocaml-easy-format-devel-1.0.2-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm ocaml-easy-format-1.0.2-1.fc21.src.rpm ocaml-easy-format.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US modelled -> modeled, model led, model-led ocaml-easy-format.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US labelled -> labeled, la belled, la-belled ocaml-easy-format.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US modelled -> modeled, model led, model-led ocaml-easy-format.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US labelled -> labeled, la belled, la-belled 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint ocaml-easy-format-devel ocaml-easy-format ocaml-easy-format.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US modelled -> modeled, model led, model-led ocaml-easy-format.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US labelled -> labeled, la belled, la-belled 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- ocaml-easy-format-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml-easy-format
ocaml-easy-format (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml(Buffer) ocaml(Format) ocaml(Hashtbl) ocaml(Int32) ocaml(List) ocaml(Obj) ocaml(Pervasives) ocaml(Printf) ocaml(String) ocaml(runtime)
Provides -------- ocaml-easy-format-devel: ocaml-easy-format-devel ocaml-easy-format-devel(x86-64)
ocaml-easy-format: ocaml(Easy_format) ocaml-easy-format ocaml-easy-format(x86-64)
Source checksums ---------------- http://mjambon.com/releases/easy-format/easy-format-1.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f1e763a3b5962b87698786f5e1e17e46311106dc76fd2e2ef822cd8df37d941f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f1e763a3b5962b87698786f5e1e17e46311106dc76fd2e2ef822cd8df37d941f
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1055391 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Ocaml Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391
--- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+fdr@sylvestre.me --- (In reply to Jerry James from comment #1)
I will take this one. Would you mind reviewing bug 1021017 in exchange?
Certainly, taken
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #2)
Issues, in no particular order:
Will get them fixed at the next revision
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391
--- Comment #4 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+fdr@sylvestre.me --- Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/ocaml/ocaml-easy-format.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/ocaml/ocaml-easy-format-1.0.2-2.fc20.s...
✗ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-20-x86_64-oef/result/ocaml-easy-format-*.x86_64.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Review feedback incorporated, details below:
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #2)
Issues, in no particular order:
These lines at the top of the spec file:
%global debug_package %{nil} %global _use_internal_dependency_generator 0 %global __find_requires /usr/lib/rpm/ocaml-find-requires.sh %global __find_provides /usr/lib/rpm/ocaml-find-provides.sh
should all be removed. The first is not necessary starting in Fedora 19, and was actively removed from ocaml packages in Fedora 20 (see
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-September/189247.html).
Aha, thanks! As it turns out the debug_package nullification is still needed when ocamlopt is not present (tested by overriding opt to 0) so I've if-guarded it.
The last three lines have not been needed for a very long time; I don't remember now when they became unnecessary, but it was prior to Fedora 19. Also, the strip invocation in %install should be removed, and we need to figure out how to add -g to the compiler flags, probably with something like this in %prep:
sed -i 's/ocamlopt/ocamlopt -g/;s/ocamlc (-[co])/ocamlc -g \1/' Makefile
That line works, thanks. As for the dependency generator, wow, someone needs to update those templates.
- The build seems to need ocaml-findlib only, not ocaml-findlib-devel; i.e., the ocamlfind tool is used, but I don't see any use of the ocaml-findlib library in the source code.
Yes, works fine once I depended only on ocaml-findlib.
Not all architectures support ocaml. Add this to your spec file:
ExclusiveArch: %{ocaml_arches}
Added
There is no need to build the bytecode version for architectures that support native code. I suggest changing the make invocation to this, without the leading "make":
%if %opt make %{?_smp_mflags} opt %else make %{?_smp_mflags} %endif
I've modified it since upstream's Makefile is a bit unusual (the default target invoked 'all' and 'opt' -- the latter is a no-op that just creates a marker to tell make install to copy additional files). so the non-optimizing case just calls make all (this way, I can test building non-ocamlopt builds even on my x86_64 mock environment)
- Since the packages are arch-specific, the dependency from the -devel subpackage to the main package should include %{?_isa}.
Added (again, the newspec template... sigh)
- Consider adding a %check section. The "make test" invocation just creates output files without checking them for correctness, so that's not sufficient, unless you are just testing for crashes, or the like. There may not be a reasonable test to run. I will leave this to your disgression.
I'm using upstream's test suite for now, even though it's incomplete.
- The description contains two British English spellings, as noted by the spell checker (see below). American English uses only one 'l' where British English uses two in "modeled" and "labeled".
Fixed
The line:
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
at the top of %install is not needed in Fedora. The versions of RPM in all supported Fedora releases do this already. (If you are thinking of building the package for EPEL, that's another story.)
Fixed
- Rpmlint complains about %define libname. I understand that you can't use %global at that location, since %{name} hasn't been defined yet. One solution to that is to use %global, but move the definition farther down in the spec file, perhaps just above %description.
Good idea, thanks.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- (In reply to Michel Alexandre Salim from comment #4)
Aha, thanks! As it turns out the debug_package nullification is still needed when ocamlopt is not present (tested by overriding opt to 0) so I've if-guarded it.
Hmmm, that's a good point. I don't think that was done during the mass enabling of debuginfo for ocaml packages. Maybe we don't currently have any architectures that support byte-code-only ocaml, so nobody has noticed?
That line works, thanks. As for the dependency generator, wow, someone needs to update those templates.
Agreed. I'll see if I can poke somebody to do that.
You handled all of the issues I brought up, and a re-review did not turn up any new issues, so this package is APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391
Michel Alexandre Salim michel+fdr@sylvestre.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #6 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+fdr@sylvestre.me --- Thank you very much for reviewing.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ocaml-easy-format Short Description: High-level and functional interface to the Format module Owners: salimma Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391
--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ocaml-easy-format-1.0.2-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ocaml-easy-format-1.0.2-2.fc19
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ocaml-easy-format-1.0.2-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ocaml-easy-format-1.0.2-2.fc20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ocaml-easy-format-1.0.2-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |ocaml-easy-format-1.0.2-2.f | |c19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2014-02-02 21:45:41
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ocaml-easy-format-1.0.2-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|ocaml-easy-format-1.0.2-2.f |ocaml-easy-format-1.0.2-2.f |c19 |c20
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ocaml-easy-format-1.0.2-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391
Ding-Yi Chen dchen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dchen@redhat.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #13 from Ding-Yi Chen dchen@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ocaml-cppo Short Description: Equivalent of the C preprocessor for OCaml programs Owners: salimma Branches: epel7 el6 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391
--- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- WARNING: Requested package name ocaml-cppo doesn't match bug summary ocaml-easy-format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org