[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Fedora-packaging] New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml



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


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]