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

Re: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml



On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 05:01:08PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 03:38:11PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 03:05:48PM +0000, 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?
> > > 
> > >  - use of chrpath and strip
> > > 
> > >  - 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:
> > >    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433783
> > > 
> > >  - ISO-8859-1 - should we ban it from *.ml & *.mli files?
> > >    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434694
> > > 
> > >  - 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
> > >    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435299
> > >    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435293
> > 
> > And while I remember:
> > 
> >  - ocaml-pcre-devel pulls in ocaml-pcre and pcre.
> >    However it doesn't pull in pcre-devel, so you cannot actually
> >    'devel'op software with this package: programs will fail to link
> >    because of missing -lpcre.  This may be a general problem with
> >    all our packages which use C libs, although for some reason
> >    I've only hit it with this one.
> 
> And:
> 
>  - certain binaries should not be stripped
>    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435559

And:

 - Clarify where documentation should go.  Currently my practice has
   been to put just the license file (if any) in the main package's %doc,
   and the license file plus all other documentation & examples in
   the devel subpackage.  This duplicates (only) the license file, but
   that seems acceptable since we shouldn't distribute software without
   its license.

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat  http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines.  Boot with a
live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into Xen guests.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-p2v


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