From rjones at redhat.com Sat Mar 1 13:47:25 2008 From: rjones at redhat.com (Richard W.M. Jones) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 13:47:25 +0000 Subject: OCaml/ppc64 In-Reply-To: <1204301427.18955.65.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> References: <1204301427.18955.65.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> Message-ID: <20080301134725.GA8273@amd.home.annexia.org> David got it building in the end, and I've rebuilt all of the OCaml packages in Rawhide (again ... and on the same day that OCaml 3.10.2 was released as well ...) They all build without error on ppc64 but that doesn't necessarily mean they will run. Just building them exercises the bytecode interpreter (written in C) and if we're lucky ocamlc.opt and ocamlopt.opt and on a rare few packages some tests. If someone can lay their hands on a ppc64 machine they can try them out. On the other hand it was a good enough excuse to finally get rid of 'ExcludeArch: ppc64' everywhere. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top From dwmw2 at infradead.org Sat Mar 1 15:01:00 2008 From: dwmw2 at infradead.org (David Woodhouse) Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 15:01:00 +0000 Subject: OCaml/ppc64 In-Reply-To: <20080301134725.GA8273@amd.home.annexia.org> References: <1204301427.18955.65.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <20080301134725.GA8273@amd.home.annexia.org> Message-ID: <1204383660.3891.6.camel@pmac.infradead.org> On Sat, 2008-03-01 at 13:47 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > David got it building in the end, and I've rebuilt all of the OCaml > packages in Rawhide (again ... and on the same day that OCaml 3.10.2 > was released as well ...) > > They all build without error on ppc64 but that doesn't necessarily > mean they will run. Just building them exercises the bytecode > interpreter (written in C) and if we're lucky ocamlc.opt and > ocamlopt.opt and on a rare few packages some tests. If someone can > lay their hands on a ppc64 machine they can try them out. Mail me a SSH public key, and/or tell me what to test. All I've done this time is dust off the old patch I had for 3.09.3 and make it build again. I haven't done any real work. So I still expect to see that SEGV in freetennis which stopped me from shipping the patch before. Although every other test case I could come up with was working fine. -- dwmw2 From rjones at redhat.com Sat Mar 1 15:05:48 2008 From: rjones at redhat.com (Richard W.M. Jones) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 15:05:48 +0000 Subject: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml Message-ID: <20080301150548.GA10317@amd.home.annexia.org> I've started a page for updating the packaging guidelines. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml At the moment it's a straight copy of the packaging guidelines except that I've updated 'ocaml-foolib.spec' from my private copy of that file. Some ideas: - how useful is the whole '%opt' stuff now that we have native compilation on every Fedora architecture? - use of chrpath and strip - should we finally distribute ocaml-find-requires/provides with upstream RPM? They haven't changed in a long time. - note about some common rpmlint errors: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433783 - ISO-8859-1 - should we ban it from *.ml & *.mli files? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434694 - camlp4/camlp5 syntax extensions are a bit different from a distribution point of view. They usually don't need a -devel package, and they require *.cmo files to be distributed. And sometimes they should be noarch. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435431 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435299 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435293 Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top From rjones at redhat.com Sat Mar 1 15:38:11 2008 From: rjones at redhat.com (Richard W.M. Jones) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 15:38:11 +0000 Subject: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml In-Reply-To: <20080301150548.GA10317@amd.home.annexia.org> References: <20080301150548.GA10317@amd.home.annexia.org> Message-ID: <20080301153811.GA10706@amd.home.annexia.org> On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 03:05:48PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > I've started a page for updating the packaging guidelines. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml > > At the moment it's a straight copy of the packaging guidelines except > that I've updated 'ocaml-foolib.spec' from my private copy of that > file. > > Some ideas: > > - how useful is the whole '%opt' stuff now that we have native > compilation on every Fedora architecture? > > - use of chrpath and strip > > - should we finally distribute ocaml-find-requires/provides with > upstream RPM? They haven't changed in a long time. > > - note about some common rpmlint errors: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433783 > > - ISO-8859-1 - should we ban it from *.ml & *.mli files? > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434694 > > - camlp4/camlp5 syntax extensions are a bit different from a > distribution point of view. They usually don't need a -devel > package, and they require *.cmo files to be distributed. > And sometimes they should be noarch. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435431 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435299 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435293 And while I remember: - ocaml-pcre-devel pulls in ocaml-pcre and pcre. However it doesn't pull in pcre-devel, so you cannot actually 'devel'op software with this package: programs will fail to link because of missing -lpcre. This may be a general problem with all our packages which use C libs, although for some reason I've only hit it with this one. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into Xen guests. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-p2v From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Sat Mar 1 15:48:02 2008 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:48:02 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml In-Reply-To: <20080301150548.GA10317@amd.home.annexia.org> References: <20080301150548.GA10317@amd.home.annexia.org> Message-ID: <47C97AB2.2080108@hhs.nl> Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > I've started a page for updating the packaging guidelines. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml > > At the moment it's a straight copy of the packaging guidelines except > that I've updated 'ocaml-foolib.spec' from my private copy of that > file. > > Some ideas: > > - how useful is the whole '%opt' stuff now that we have native > compilation on every Fedora architecture? > Keep in mind that people are working hard to get secondary arches of the ground, so I vote to keep it in. > - use of chrpath and strip > I don't see this anywhere in: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml Explain? > - should we finally distribute ocaml-find-requires/provides with > upstream RPM? They haven't changed in a long time. > +1 > - note about some common rpmlint errors: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433783 > Good work on trying to get rpmlint ocaml aware, but how is this relevant for the guidelines, other then maybe adding a section about which warnings may be ignored > - ISO-8859-1 - should we ban it from *.ml & *.mli files? > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434694 > I wouldn't do that if the language explicitly allows using non ascii codes in identifiers, and also dictates use of a certain codepage for this, then we should respect this. > - camlp4/camlp5 syntax extensions are a bit different from a > distribution point of view. They usually don't need a -devel > package, and they require *.cmo files to be distributed. > And sometimes they should be noarch. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435431 Erm I don't see any .cmo files in the filelist for this one? Regards, Hans From rjones at redhat.com Sat Mar 1 15:49:59 2008 From: rjones at redhat.com (Richard W.M. Jones) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 15:49:59 +0000 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml In-Reply-To: <47C97AB2.2080108@hhs.nl> References: <20080301150548.GA10317@amd.home.annexia.org> <47C97AB2.2080108@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <20080301154959.GA10783@amd.home.annexia.org> On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 04:48:02PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > I don't see this anywhere in: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml > > Explain? Sorry, I should have been clearer: these are problems I've identified. I haven't edited the page yet :-) Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into Xen guests. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-p2v From rjones at redhat.com Sat Mar 1 17:01:08 2008 From: rjones at redhat.com (Richard W.M. Jones) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 17:01:08 +0000 Subject: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml In-Reply-To: <20080301153811.GA10706@amd.home.annexia.org> References: <20080301150548.GA10317@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080301153811.GA10706@amd.home.annexia.org> Message-ID: <20080301170108.GA11487@amd.home.annexia.org> On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 03:38:11PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 03:05:48PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > I've started a page for updating the packaging guidelines. > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml > > > > At the moment it's a straight copy of the packaging guidelines except > > that I've updated 'ocaml-foolib.spec' from my private copy of that > > file. > > > > Some ideas: > > > > - how useful is the whole '%opt' stuff now that we have native > > compilation on every Fedora architecture? > > > > - use of chrpath and strip > > > > - should we finally distribute ocaml-find-requires/provides with > > upstream RPM? They haven't changed in a long time. > > > > - note about some common rpmlint errors: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433783 > > > > - ISO-8859-1 - should we ban it from *.ml & *.mli files? > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434694 > > > > - camlp4/camlp5 syntax extensions are a bit different from a > > distribution point of view. They usually don't need a -devel > > package, and they require *.cmo files to be distributed. > > And sometimes they should be noarch. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435431 > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435299 > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435293 > > And while I remember: > > - ocaml-pcre-devel pulls in ocaml-pcre and pcre. > However it doesn't pull in pcre-devel, so you cannot actually > 'devel'op software with this package: programs will fail to link > because of missing -lpcre. This may be a general problem with > all our packages which use C libs, although for some reason > I've only hit it with this one. And: - certain binaries should not be stripped https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435559 Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top From dwmw2 at infradead.org Sun Mar 2 13:05:58 2008 From: dwmw2 at infradead.org (David Woodhouse) Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:05:58 +0000 Subject: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml In-Reply-To: <20080301170108.GA11487@amd.home.annexia.org> References: <20080301150548.GA10317@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080301153811.GA10706@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080301170108.GA11487@amd.home.annexia.org> Message-ID: <1204463158.3891.41.camel@pmac.infradead.org> On Sat, 2008-03-01 at 17:01 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > And: > > - certain binaries should not be stripped > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435559 That's a bad way to phrase the problem, surely? It's OCaml doing something 'strange' which make stripping break, almost certainly -- we should fix that instead. -- dwmw2 From rjones at redhat.com Mon Mar 3 16:53:09 2008 From: rjones at redhat.com (Richard W.M. Jones) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:53:09 +0000 Subject: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml In-Reply-To: <20080301170108.GA11487@amd.home.annexia.org> References: <20080301150548.GA10317@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080301153811.GA10706@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080301170108.GA11487@amd.home.annexia.org> Message-ID: <20080303165309.GA31502@amd.home.annexia.org> On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 05:01:08PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 03:38:11PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 03:05:48PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > I've started a page for updating the packaging guidelines. > > > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml > > > > > > At the moment it's a straight copy of the packaging guidelines except > > > that I've updated 'ocaml-foolib.spec' from my private copy of that > > > file. > > > > > > Some ideas: > > > > > > - how useful is the whole '%opt' stuff now that we have native > > > compilation on every Fedora architecture? > > > > > > - use of chrpath and strip > > > > > > - should we finally distribute ocaml-find-requires/provides with > > > upstream RPM? They haven't changed in a long time. > > > > > > - note about some common rpmlint errors: > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433783 > > > > > > - ISO-8859-1 - should we ban it from *.ml & *.mli files? > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434694 > > > > > > - camlp4/camlp5 syntax extensions are a bit different from a > > > distribution point of view. They usually don't need a -devel > > > package, and they require *.cmo files to be distributed. > > > And sometimes they should be noarch. > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435431 > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435299 > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435293 > > > > And while I remember: > > > > - ocaml-pcre-devel pulls in ocaml-pcre and pcre. > > However it doesn't pull in pcre-devel, so you cannot actually > > 'devel'op software with this package: programs will fail to link > > because of missing -lpcre. This may be a general problem with > > all our packages which use C libs, although for some reason > > I've only hit it with this one. > > And: > > - certain binaries should not be stripped > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435559 And: - Clarify where documentation should go. Currently my practice has been to put just the license file (if any) in the main package's %doc, and the license file plus all other documentation & examples in the devel subpackage. This duplicates (only) the license file, but that seems acceptable since we shouldn't distribute software without its license. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into Xen guests. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-p2v From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Mar 3 16:57:40 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:57:40 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Re: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml In-Reply-To: <20080303165309.GA31502@amd.home.annexia.org> References: <20080301150548.GA10317@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080301153811.GA10706@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080301170108.GA11487@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080303165309.GA31502@amd.home.annexia.org> Message-ID: <1204563460.3726.60.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 16:53 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > - Clarify where documentation should go. Currently my practice has > been to put just the license file (if any) in the main package's %doc, > and the license file plus all other documentation & examples in > the devel subpackage. This duplicates (only) the license file, but > that seems acceptable since we shouldn't distribute software without > its license. -devel packages should Require the main package, thus, there really isn't any need for the duplicate license copy. ~spot From rjones at redhat.com Wed Mar 5 18:14:47 2008 From: rjones at redhat.com (Richard W.M. Jones) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 18:14:47 +0000 Subject: UPDATED: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml In-Reply-To: <47C97AB2.2080108@hhs.nl> References: <20080301150548.GA10317@amd.home.annexia.org> <47C97AB2.2080108@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <20080305181332.GA28092@amd.home.annexia.org> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml Diff from the previous version: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml?action=diff&rev2=2&rev1=1 Comments etc. welcome. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into Xen guests. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-p2v From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Wed Mar 5 18:43:40 2008 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:43:40 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] UPDATED: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml In-Reply-To: <20080305181332.GA28092@amd.home.annexia.org> References: <20080301150548.GA10317@amd.home.annexia.org> <47C97AB2.2080108@hhs.nl> <20080305181332.GA28092@amd.home.annexia.org> Message-ID: <47CEE9DC.1030307@hhs.nl> Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml > > Diff from the previous version: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml?action=diff&rev2=2&rev1=1 > > Comments etc. welcome. > Looks very good, FPC, I would like to suggest we discuss (and maybe approve) this on our next meeting. Regards, Hans From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Wed Mar 5 18:44:16 2008 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:44:16 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] UPDATED: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml In-Reply-To: <20080305181332.GA28092@amd.home.annexia.org> References: <20080301150548.GA10317@amd.home.annexia.org> <47C97AB2.2080108@hhs.nl> <20080305181332.GA28092@amd.home.annexia.org> Message-ID: <47CEEA00.6010200@hhs.nl> Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml > > Diff from the previous version: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml?action=diff&rev2=2&rev1=1 > > Comments etc. welcome. > > Rich. > p.s. Rich, in my last mail I sortof assumed that this is ready for FPC discussion, is it? From lemenkov at gmail.com Thu Mar 6 11:03:57 2008 From: lemenkov at gmail.com (Peter Lemenkov) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 14:03:57 +0300 Subject: UPDATED: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml In-Reply-To: <20080305181332.GA28092@amd.home.annexia.org> References: <20080301150548.GA10317@amd.home.annexia.org> <47C97AB2.2080108@hhs.nl> <20080305181332.GA28092@amd.home.annexia.org> Message-ID: Hello All! 2008/3/5, Richard W.M. Jones : > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml > > Diff from the previous version: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml?action=diff&rev2=2&rev1=1 > > Comments etc. welcome. Looks sane. -- With best regards! From dwmw2 at infradead.org Fri Mar 14 07:49:51 2008 From: dwmw2 at infradead.org (David Woodhouse) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:49:51 +0100 Subject: UPDATED: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml In-Reply-To: <20080305181332.GA28092@amd.home.annexia.org> References: <20080301150548.GA10317@amd.home.annexia.org> <47C97AB2.2080108@hhs.nl> <20080305181332.GA28092@amd.home.annexia.org> Message-ID: <1205480992.16203.40.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 18:14 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml > > Diff from the previous version: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml?action=diff&rev2=2&rev1=1 It doesn't address multilib. For example, the -devel packages should require ocaml of the _same_ architecture, not just "ocaml". In particular, the example that "ocaml-pcre-devel needs an explicit 'Requires: pcre-devel'" is wrong, because an i386 pcre-devel package would satisfy that, while not being particularly useful for an x86_64 ocaml-pcre-devel. Because of bug #235755 you may need to use virtual provides or file-based dependencies to express the dependencies correctly. Unless we put 235755 on the F9Blocker... :) -- dwmw2 From rjones at redhat.com Tue Mar 18 09:12:14 2008 From: rjones at redhat.com (Richard W.M. Jones) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:12:14 +0000 Subject: UPDATED: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml In-Reply-To: <1205480992.16203.40.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> References: <20080301150548.GA10317@amd.home.annexia.org> <47C97AB2.2080108@hhs.nl> <20080305181332.GA28092@amd.home.annexia.org> <1205480992.16203.40.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> Message-ID: <20080318091214.GA3286@amd.home.annexia.org> On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 08:49:51AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > It doesn't address multilib. For example, the -devel packages should > require ocaml of the _same_ architecture, not just "ocaml". > > In particular, the example that "ocaml-pcre-devel needs an explicit > 'Requires: pcre-devel'" is wrong, because an i386 pcre-devel package > would satisfy that, while not being particularly useful for an x86_64 > ocaml-pcre-devel. Right -- I now understand the problem. See for example my email here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2008-March/msg00105.html What I _don't_ understand is how to fix this ... Obviously bug 235755 ("rpm doesn't allow 'Requires: foo.%{ARCH}'") would be an ideal fix. In the absence of that can someone suggest a workable scheme? I can add file deps, I think, to solve this: In ocaml-pcre-devel: Requires: %{_libdir}/ocaml/pcre/ (get the right ocaml-pcre) Requires: %{_libdir}/libpcre.a (instead of pcre-devel) would seem to fix this, at the cost of downloading the filelists. > Because of bug #235755 you may need to use virtual provides or > file-based dependencies to express the dependencies correctly. > Unless we put 235755 on the F9Blocker... :) For reference: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=235755 Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into Xen guests. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-p2v