Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6150702
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2221320-ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06150702-ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

The package has been updated to version 0.03.  New URLs:

Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts/ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts/ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts-0.03-1.fc40.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6274154
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2221320-ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06274154-ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Let's see if fedora-review is working now ...

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/ocaml

I'm a bit confused by this message from fedora-review, as the package
creates %{ocamldir}/camlp5-buildscripts/ ==
/usr/lib64/ocaml/camlp5-buildscripts.  ocamldir is owned by the OCaml
package.  I also checked this by looking at the final RPM and it all
looks OK to me.

[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.

Package uses autochangelog.

[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.

Builds for bytecode or native code.

[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 4894 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Ocaml:
[x]: This should never happen

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).

Just libc and other standard stuff.

[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.

Yes, version 0.03 is packaged which is the latest upstream.

[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.

Yes, upstream tests are present and the spec file runs them.

[-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts-0.03-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts-debuginfo-0.03-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts-debugsource-0.03-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts-0.03-1.fc40.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpl2oiqi9n')]
checks: 31, packages: 4

ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/ocaml/camlp5-buildscripts/LAUNCH
ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/ocaml/camlp5-buildscripts/fixin
ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/ocaml/camlp5-buildscripts/join_meta
ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/ocaml/camlp5-buildscripts/ya-wrap-ocamlfind
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.1 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts-debuginfo-0.03-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpyfx477kp')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 3

ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/ocaml/camlp5-buildscripts/LAUNCH
ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/ocaml/camlp5-buildscripts/fixin
ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/ocaml/camlp5-buildscripts/join_meta
ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/ocaml/camlp5-buildscripts/ya-wrap-ocamlfind
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.3 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/camlp5/camlp5-buildscripts/archive/0.03/camlp5-buildscripts-0.03.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ba76430510eb28bd94bb7310d42e9c590621067a84452233b8a88c5cf0566fd3
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ba76430510eb28bd94bb7310d42e9c590621067a84452233b8a88c5cf0566fd3


Requires
--------
ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts:
    ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts
    ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts(x86-64)

ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts-debuginfo
    ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts-debuginfo(x86-64)

ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts-debugsource:
    ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts-debugsource
    ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2221320 -L /var/tmp/p
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Ocaml, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Haskell, fonts, PHP, C/C++, Java, R, Python, Perl, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Built with local dependencies:
    /var/tmp/p/not-ocamlfind-0.10-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm

*** Package APPROVED for Fedora ***

Thanks for the review!

(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #5)
> [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>      Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/ocaml
> 
> I'm a bit confused by this message from fedora-review, as the package
> creates %{ocamldir}/camlp5-buildscripts/ ==
> /usr/lib64/ocaml/camlp5-buildscripts.  ocamldir is owned by the OCaml
> package.  I also checked this by looking at the final RPM and it all
> looks OK to me.

Oh, I see.  The package does not depend on anything in ocaml-runtime, so it can be installed standalone, leaving /usr/lib64/ocaml without an owner.  I'll make this package own that directory, too.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts

ocaml-camlp5-buildscripts has been built in F39 and Rawhide.