[Bug 435431] Review Request: ocaml-deriving - Extension to OCaml for deriving functions from types

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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

Summary: Review Request: ocaml-deriving - Extension to OCaml for deriving functions from types


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435431


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2008-05-10 22:11 EST -------
License: should be MIT.  The COPYING file says "The MIT License" and indeed our
licensing guidelines agree with that.

I had guessed that this one would have a .cmo file but it doesn't.  So I guess
I'm still pretty confused about that.

The only issue is the license tag, and that's a trivial fix so I'll approve this
and you can fix it when you check in.

* source files match upstream:
   ab9e5403a383d57b3572b21587a23dc2f85980b0a95936ac748ccd2118c4f55e  
   deriving-0.1.1a.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.

APPROVED
X license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane; listed above so no point in repeating 
   them.
* %check is present and all tests pass:
   Tests succeeded!
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files (besides COPYING file)
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* .cma, .cmi, .so, .so.owner, META files in the main package.
* .a, .cmxa, .cmx and .mli files are in the -devel subpackage.
* .cmo, .o and .ml files not included


-- 
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, or are watching someone who is.