New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml
Richard W.M. Jones
rjones at redhat.com
Mon Mar 3 16:53:09 UTC 2008
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
More information about the Fedora-ocaml-list
mailing list