[Bug 491712] Review Request: ocaml-mlgmpidl - OCaml interface to GMP and MPFR libraries

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Mar 25 12:01:18 UTC 2009

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


Alan Dunn <amdunn at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
               Flag|needinfo?(amdunn at gmail.com) |

--- Comment #3 from Alan Dunn <amdunn at gmail.com>  2009-03-25 08:00:56 EDT ---
Should be fixed now in files at the same location (though in this case, unlike
in the example, %{my_ocaml_lib_dir}/*.a should be excluded from main and put
into devel in not just opt build due to libgmp_caml.a)

(In reply to comment #2)
> + rpmlint output
> rpmlint output all looks fine, and the things it notices
> can be ignored.
> + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
> + specfile name matches the package base name
> + package should satisfy packaging guidelines
> + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
> + license matches the actual package license
>   LGPLv2 (not +)
> + %doc includes license file
> + spec file written in American English
> + spec file is legible
> + upstream sources match sources in the srpm
>   63ec244511e58bd1cbf5513dc7aaad8e 169186
> + package successfully builds on at least one architecture
> n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
> + BuildRequires list all build dependencies
> n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
> + binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
> + does not use Prefix: /usr
> - package owns all directories it creates
>   Package should own %{my_ocaml_lib_dir}.
>   Then %files should add %exclude lines for everything in -devel.
>   See the example:
> http://fedoraproject.org/w/uploads/5/5c/Packaging_OCaml_ocaml-foolib.spec
> + no duplicate files in %files
> + %defattr line
> + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> + consistent use of macros
> + package must contain code or permissible content
> + large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
> + files marked %doc should not affect package
> n/a header files should be in -devel
> n/a static libraries should be in -static
> n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
> n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
> + -devel must require the fully versioned base
> n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files
> n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
> + packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
> + %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
> + filenames must be valid UTF-8
> Optional:
> n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
> n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
> available
> + reviewer should build the package in mock
> + the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
> - review should test the package functions as described
> n/a scriptlets should be sane
> n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
> + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
> /usr/sbin
> ------------
> Please fix the directory ownership issue.

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.

More information about the Fedora-ocaml-list mailing list