https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036
Bug ID: 1174036 Summary: Review Request: ocaml-re - OCaml regular expression library 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-re.spec SRPM URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-re-1.2.2-2.fc21.src.rpm Description:
A pure OCaml regular expression library. Supports Perl-style regular expressions, Posix extended regular expressions, Emacs-style regular expressions, and shell-style file globbing. It is also possible to build regular expressions by combining simpler regular expressions. There is also a subset of the PCRE interface available in the Re.pcre library.
Fedora Account System Username: jonludlam
Koji link: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8383840
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036
--- Comment #1 from Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com --- *** Bug 1174035 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036
--- Comment #2 from Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com --- *** Bug 1174039 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036
Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |robinlee.sysu@gmail.com Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rjones@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com --- Usually better for patches to be '*.patch' since it makes it clearer what the file is when looking at the git repo.
You probably don't need a newline after %description. Not sure what rpm does - whether it ignores it or adds whitespace to the rpm header.
Rest looks fine to me.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036
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=1174036
--- Comment #4 from Jon Ludlam jon@recoil.org --- Thanks Richard. Fixed those two.
Spec URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-re.spec SRPM URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-re-1.2.2-3.fc21.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036
--- Comment #5 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++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rjones/1174036-ocaml- re/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [?]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
Consider replacing 'make' with 'make %{?_smp_mflags}' (assuming that works).
[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. [x]: 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]: 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.
Ocaml: [x]: This should never happen
RWMJ - I have no idea what this means. fedora-review is broken.
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
See comment above.
[-]: 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-re- 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. [ ]: 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: [x]: 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-re-1.2.2-3.fc21.x86_64.rpm ocaml-re-devel-1.2.2-3.fc21.x86_64.rpm ocaml-re-1.2.2-3.fc21.src.rpm ocaml-re.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US globbing -> globing, gobbing, lobbing ocaml-re.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pcre -> pare, acre, pore ocaml-re.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US globbing -> globing, gobbing, lobbing ocaml-re.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pcre -> pare, acre, pore ocaml-re.src:43: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build ocaml setup.ml -configure --destdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
You can ignore these.
Requires -------- ocaml-re (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) ocaml(Array) ocaml(Buffer) ocaml(Char) ocaml(Format) ocaml(Hashtbl) ocaml(List) ocaml(Map) ocaml(Pervasives) ocaml(Re) ocaml(Re_emacs) ocaml(Re_perl) ocaml(String) ocaml(runtime) rtld(GNU_HASH)
ocaml-re-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml-re
Provides -------- ocaml-re: ocaml(Automata) ocaml(Cset) ocaml(Re) ocaml(Re_emacs) ocaml(Re_glob) ocaml(Re_pcre) ocaml(Re_perl) ocaml(Re_posix) ocaml(Re_str) ocaml-re ocaml-re(x86-64)
ocaml-re-devel: ocaml-re-devel ocaml-re-devel(x86-64)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml-re/archive/ocaml-re-1.2.2/ocaml-re-1.2.2.tar.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fdc5233c8ff14394f39b0137029fd61f36cc17c703cbd54b173a94cdb827d62e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fdc5233c8ff14394f39b0137029fd61f36cc17c703cbd54b173a94cdb827d62e
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1174036 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=1174036
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- QA Contact|extras-qa@fedoraproject.org |rjones@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com --- This package is APPROVED by rjones, but please check the items mentioned in the review above.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036
--- Comment #7 from Jon Ludlam jon@recoil.org --- Thanks again Richard. Looks like the "make %{?_smp_mflags}" change breaks the build. It works for the latest git version, so we can put it in if we upgrade. I had a quick look through the git log to see if there was an obvious change that fixed it, but I couldn't immediately see it. I've fixed the {isa} thing though.
Spec URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-re.spec SRPM URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-re-1.2.2-4.fc21.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036
--- Comment #8 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- jonludlam's scratch build of ocaml-re-1.4.1-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11536753
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036
--- Comment #9 from Jon Ludlam jon@recoil.org --- New upstream release:
Spec URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-re.spec SRPM URL: http://www.recoil.org/~jon/ocaml-re-1.4.1-1.fc23.src.rpm
and Koji build as per previous comment.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036
Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |jon@recoil.org Flags| |needinfo?(jon@recoil.org)
--- Comment #10 from Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com --- still not in rawhide.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036
Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rosser.bjr@gmail.com
--- Comment #11 from Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com --- Since the package review was approved, it was proposed on the devel list that this just get imported.
However, the spec and SRPM are no longer available from the links above, and there have been several new releases of ocaml-re since 2015. (Also, I needed a build of ocaml-re to start looking at ocaml-dose, another opam dependency).
I grabbed a copy of the spec from Jon's copr repository: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/jonludlam/opam/ocaml-re.git/p..., and updated the version to 1.7.1.
I had to make a minor modification or two to get it to build from that version of the spec; there's (now?) a configure script upstream, which I just invoked directly. However the documentation gets put in the wrong place (%{buildroot}%{_docdir}/re rather than .../ocaml-re), so I remove it in %install and install it manually.
Otherwise, I made no changes to Jon's package.
Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/opam/ocaml-re.spec SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/opam/ocaml-re-1.7.1-1.fc26.src.rpm
I can open a new review, if you'd prefer.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036
Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1486068
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486068 [Bug 1486068] Review Request: ocaml-dose3 - Framework for managing distribution packages and dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |needinfo?(jon@recoil.org)
--- Comment #12 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com ---
Submitter not responding
When the submitter of a review ticket has not responded to comments for one month, a comment is added to the ticket indicating that the review is stalled and that a response is needed soon. If there is no response within one week, the ticket is closed with resolution NOTABUG, and the fedora-review flag is set to the empty value. The bug may be set as blocking FE-DEADREVIEW. The intention is to close the bug so that it can be submitted by someone else in a separate bug, and also to make it easy to find bugs closed in this way.
If the bug is resubmitted by someone else, it is also reasonable to change the resolution on the closed bug to DUPLICATE and mark it as a duplicate of the new bug so that reviewers of the new ticket can easily find the work that was done on the old one.
Jon Ludlam, could you please create the repo and build the package since it has been accepted? Otherwise, we'll mark this as a dead review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |rjones@redhat.com Flags|needinfo?(jon@recoil.org) | |needinfo?(jon@recoil.org) |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036
--- Comment #13 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com --- Grumble ..
$ fedrepo-req -t 1174036 ocaml-re Error: The Bugzilla ticket's review was approved over 60 days ago
I will give the new package in comment 11 and quick re-review ...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com --- All the issues found and fixed in the original package review remain fixed in the update package in comment 11, therefore I'm approving this again.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036
--- Comment #15 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/596
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036
--- Comment #16 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ocaml-re
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036
--- Comment #17 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com --- Thanks Gwyn. I'm still waiting for permissions to propagate so I can push to the repo, but in the meantime here is a scratch build for testing purposes:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21526932
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036
--- Comment #18 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com --- https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7003
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2017-08-29 16:09:00
--- Comment #19 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com --- https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21534688
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036
Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |i@cicku.me
--- Comment #20 from Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com --- *** Bug 1266011 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org