[Fedora-packaging] New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml
Hans de Goede
j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl
Sat Mar 1 15:48:02 UTC 2008
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I've started a page for updating the packaging guidelines.
> 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
> 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:
> - 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:
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
> - ISO-8859-1 - should we ban it from *.ml & *.mli files?
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.
Erm I don't see any .cmo files in the filelist for this one?
More information about the Fedora-packaging