[Fedora-packaging] New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml

[Hans de Goede]

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