[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||496433(RussianFedora) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Resolution||NOTABUG Flag|needinfo?(rkhad...@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #52 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-03-09 20:07:36 EDT --- Well, I waited a month. Closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(rkhad...@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #51 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-02-11 14:19:05 EDT --- It's been many months since the last comment from the submitter of this ticket; I will close this out in a week if progress isn't made. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Comment #49 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2008-12-22 15:37:10 EDT --- So what's up with this ticket? The last comment from the submitter was a comple of months ago. As for the emacs stuff, I would suggest that you follow the emacs packaging guidleines if you intend to package the emacs stuff, but other packages have simply taken the step of packaging a lone .el file as documentation and leaving it to the end user to set that up if they want it. Also, the package in comment #30, which seems to be the most recent one, fails to build for me in rawhide: Running aclocal Running autoconf configure: WARNING: unrecognized options: --disable-rpath configure: error: cannot run /bin/sh ./config.sub -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Comment #50 from Michal Jaegermann mic...@harddata.com 2008-12-22 20:35:15 EDT --- Also, the package in comment #30, which seems to be the most recent one, The package may be the most recent one but the current _releases_ are librep 0.17.2: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=580 rep-gtk 0.18.3: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=581 and sawfish 1.3.5: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=32 The first two were released 2008-10-22 and sawfish on 2008-12-20. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Comment #48 from Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-04 14:28:00 EDT --- rpm may now support noarch subpackages, but the buildsys doesn't. Honestly there are some interesting issues that crop up, such as which of the noarch packages gets used? The one from the i386 build, the x86_64 build, one of the PPC builds, or something else? There's no guarantee that they're the same; unless significant care is taken they will almost always differ in the timestamps of the included files and may differ in more significant ways. Bottom line: noarch subpackages do not work and aren't going to work even in F10, regardless of what support has been checked into rpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Comment #47 from Michal Jaegermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-03 12:01:35 EDT --- Re comment #6 about building a noarch subpackages. A changelog for rpm-4.6.0-0.rc1.7 in the current rawhide includes the following comment: * Sat Oct 25 2008 Panu Matilainen [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Make noarch sub-packages actually work I guess that this leaves you in a cold with earlier rpm versions. Maybe Panu would have some additional comments; in particular about mechanics of this option. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250
Jonathan Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
||m
--- Comment #43 from Jonathan Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-22
13:08:22 EDT ---
Michal, you need a emacs-%{name} sub-package which contains the byte compiled
emacs files (this is distinct from the emacs-%{name}-el subpackage which
contains the elsip source files).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250
--- Comment #44 from Michal Jaegermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-22 13:20:39
EDT ---
Michal, you need a emacs-%{name} sub-package ...
Eh? What do you mean by you need? It may be useful for some, although in
various cases this is really debatable, but is surely not needed if you
have .el files.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250
--- Comment #45 from Jonathan Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-22
13:24:22 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #44)
Michal, you need a emacs-%{name} sub-package ...
Eh? What do you mean by you need? It may be useful for some, although in
various cases this is really debatable, but is surely not needed if you
have .el files.
Please see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Emacs
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Comment #46 from Jonathan Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-22 13:31:26 EDT --- Actually comment #43 was aimed at the package submitter (ritz) rather than Michal, apologies for that. But the point stands - byte compilation is necessary, as it provides a speedup when parsing many elisp files (particularly on older machines. Also, if a file doesn't do what it should when byte compiled, then that's a bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Comment #41 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-20 16:07:53 EDT --- I can access that page... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Comment #42 from ritz [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-20 16:43:53 EDT --- my bad, i had not installed the cert. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Comment #39 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-19 07:25:30 EDT --- I you have rpms, I'd like to look at the files to see where differences are. I tried a scratch build, but it failed: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=888335 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Comment #40 from ritz [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-20 00:18:51 EDT --- sorry, i was unable to access the page. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250
--- Comment #38 from ritz [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-14 08:55:09 EDT ---
I had tried building a multi-lib package before, and ended up with conflict
between i386 and x86_64 package. Few of the files are listed below
/usr/share/rep/0.17.2/lisp/cgi-get.jl
/usr/share/rep/0.17.2/lisp/cgi-get.jlc
/usr/share/rep/0.17.2/lisp/compiler.jl
/usr/share/rep/0.17.2/lisp/compiler.jlc
/usr/share/rep/0.17.2/lisp/date.jl
/usr/share/rep/0.17.2/lisp/date.jlc
/usr/share/rep/0.17.2/lisp/disassembler.jl
/usr/share/rep/0.17.2/lisp/disassembler.jlc
/usr/share/rep/0.17.2/lisp/gaol.jl
/usr/share/rep/0.17.2/lisp/gaol.jlc
/usr/share/rep/0.17.2/lisp/lisp-doc.jl
...
as pointed out by comment#9, i do not see any reason for a person to install
both x86_64 , and i386 version on a system.
-
If otherwise required, i will go ahead and package
/usr/share/rep/%{version}/lisp/ under librep-common package. the only question
being, how do i build a noarch package ?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250
--- Comment #35 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-09 05:18:23 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #34)
Was this an attempt to make librep and sawfish
multilib? I miss a purpose of such exercise although
maybe there is one?
If there is %{_host} it shouldn't be problematic with respect with
multilib (at least regarding file conflicts).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250
--- Comment #36 from Michal Jaegermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-09 10:53:18
EDT ---
If there is %{_host} ...
You mean that architecture shows up as a part
of %{_host}? In that case was the move in question
dictated by other considerations?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250
--- Comment #37 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-09 11:32:02 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #36)
If there is %{_host} ...
You mean that architecture shows up as a part
of %{_host}? In that case was the move in question
dictated by other considerations?
$ rpm --eval %_host
i386-redhat-linux-gnu
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250
--- Comment #34 from Michal Jaegermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-09 00:48:20
EDT ---
Files in rep/%{version}/%{_host}/ were moved from
%{_libexecdir}/rep/... to %{_libdir}/rep/...
Not sure when, how and what for? This makes sawfish
specs, ahem, interesting as they work or not depending
only on with which version of librep you are trying
to compile without any real interface changes in this
library. Sawfish will compile but %files section will
change depending on circumstances. It is possible
to check in specs where librep in use puts 'rep'
and define %{librepwhere} accordingly to be used
in %files; it looks like an extra bother.
Was this an attempt to make librep and sawfish
multilib? I miss a purpose of such exercise although
maybe there is one?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Comment #32 from ritz [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-05 13:03:09 EDT --- The file /usr/bin/rep-config will conflict in multilib settings, is multilib support really required ? As i see this to be of little value - comment#11 . In librep.pc there is no Libs: entry??? As of now, i am thinking of excluding this from package. Will talk to upstream about this using this as a wrapper around pkgconfig. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Comment #33 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-05 15:47:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #32) The file /usr/bin/rep-config will conflict in multilib settings, is multilib support really required ? As i see this to be of little value - comment#11 . One may want to link against a specific arch. But even though this is not a very usefull setting, one should not have get error when installing both, and currently this is the case, since there is a conflict. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Comment #27 from ritz [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-04 04:04:59 EDT --- Using rep in /usr/share, and in bindir is bad, in my opinion. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Use_of_common_namespace debain is using rep itsel, and upstream[1] does not see much value in this change [1] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/sawfish-list/2008-October/msg4.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Comment #28 from ritz [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-04 04:16:19 EDT --- updated package http://people.redhat.com/rkhadgar/personal/fedora/librep.spec http://people.redhat.com/rkhadgar/personal/fedora/librep-0.17.2-2.20081003svn.fc9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250
--- Comment #29 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-04 05:58:40 EDT
---
The %{_libdir}/rep/%{version}/ dir seems unowned.
The %version is still wrong, should be 0.X.20081003svn
I understand why the .la could be needed at runtime for the
dlopened modules, but is really %{_libdir}/librep.la needed
at build time?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250
--- Comment #30 from ritz [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-04 07:30:14 EDT ---
I understand why the .la could be needed at runtime for the
dlopened modules, but is really %{_libdir}/librep.la needed
at build time?
fixed.
The %version is still wrong, should be 0.X.20081003svn
fixed
http://people.redhat.com/rkhadgar/personal/fedora/librep.spec
http://people.redhat.com/rkhadgar/personal/fedora/librep-0.17.2-0.2.20081003svn.fc9.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250
--- Comment #31 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-04 12:56:25 EDT
---
* rpmlint output ignorable:
librep-devel.i386: W: no-documentation
librep-devel.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
emacs-librep-el.i386: W: no-documentation
X free software, but license should be included
* follow guidelines
* match upstream (checked manually)
* usual .so unuseful provides
X directory %{_libdir}/rep/%{version}/ unowned.
# rpm -qf /usr/lib/rep/0.17.2/
file /usr/lib/rep/0.17.2 is not owned by any package
I would suggest putting AUTHORS MAINTAINERS in %doc. And maybe doc/*.
2 issues marked with X to be fixed before approval.
And also before approval there are multilib issues remaining:
In librep.pc there is no Libs: entry???
The file /usr/bin/rep-config will conflict in multilib settings,
on fedora it would be better to patch it such that it is a wrapper
around pkgconfig, and you can submit to upstream the resulting rep-config
script such that they also ship it, and packagers can choose what to
install.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250
--- Comment #21 from ritz [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-03 17:59:30 EDT ---
I notice a bunch of .la files packaged. Generally these should not be
packaged;
do you have some specific reason for doing so?
need them to build rep-gtk, or anything for that matter with rep. this is
needed. added these to devel package.
Indeed -el subupackages are, unless I am wrong, like -devel subpackages. It
seems to me that the 'compiled' emacs module is missing. That being said, I
know next to nothing about emacs.
I do not see any reason to build them. is this really required ?
The files in devel in /usr/lib/rep/%{_host} seem dubious. Are they really
of use?
Yes, to build any apps againt rep.
updated package
http://people.redhat.com/rkhadgar/personal/fedora/librep.spec
http://people.redhat.com/rkhadgar/personal/fedora/librep-0.17.2-1.20081003svn.fc9.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250
--- Comment #22 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-03 18:35:26 EDT
---
The release is not right for svn snapshots. Should be like
0.1.20081003svn
Since you use autogen now, I guess that autoconf/automake are needed.
devel should require pkgconfig.
Looks like the %{_libdir}/rep/ directory is unowned.
Using rep in /usr/share, and in bindir is bad, in my opinion. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Use_of_common_namespace
Using librep instead would be right for the directory, and
something else for the binary. But this has to be done
with upstream.
Regarding the emacs subpackages, my intuition is that with only
the el package, it just doeosn't work. But i may well be wrong.
I think that even if the emacs packaging is not perfect, this
shouldn't block the review, this is not vital and i am not
knowlegable enough.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Comment #23 from Michal Jaegermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-03 18:59:18 EDT --- Regarding the emacs subpackages, my intuition is that with only the el package, it just doeosn't work. You really do not need .elc packages with emacs at all. This is only an optimization to load things faster and with nowadays CPUs negligible one (this was not the case at emacs beginnings). There was also undumping which ceased to be feasible. Moreover I know of cases when a presence of .elc packages really break things, causing some functions to bail out with complaints about wrong parameters, while removal of those and leaving only .el files provides a fix. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250
--- Comment #24 from ritz [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-03 19:11:58 EDT ---
Since you use autogen now, I guess that autoconf/automake are needed.
devel should require pkgconfig.
Looks like the %{_libdir}/rep/ directory is unowned.
Updated spec and srpm
Using rep in /usr/share, and in bindir is bad, in my opinion. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Use_of_common_namespace
Using librep instead would be right for the directory, and something else for
the binary. But this has to be done with upstream.
I really doubt, if this will happen anytime soon. Will check this up with
upstream maintainer. Additionally, I was unable to locate any other projects,
which used rep for name on google search.
You really do not need .elc packages with emacs at all.
Thanks for the info.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Comment #25 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-03 20:20:49 EDT --- Where is the updated srpm? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Comment #26 from ritz [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-03 20:30:01 EDT --- here - http://people.redhat.com/rkhadgar/personal/fedora/librep.spec http://people.redhat.com/rkhadgar/personal/fedora/librep-0.17.2-1.20081003svn.fc9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250
--- Comment #19 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-28 16:35:42 EDT
---
I think it is better to keep changelog, to track not only changes but
also their pace, but it is not a big deal.
For the emacs package this is a bit strange. Indeed -el subupackages
are, unless I am wrong, like -devel subpackages. It seems to me that
the 'compiled' emacs module is missing. That being said, I know next
to nothing about emacs.
pkgconfig dependency is missing for -devel.
rpmlint warnings are harmless in my opinion
librep-devel.i386: W: no-documentation
librep-devel.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
emacs-librep-el.i386: W: no-documentation
The files in devel in /usr/lib/rep/%{_host} seem dubious. Are
they really of use?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Comment #20 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-28 16:50:10 EDT --- Also in librep.pc there is no Libs: entry??? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 Itamar Reis Peixoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Alias||librep -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Comment #18 from ritz [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-08 07:20:30 EDT --- updated. thanks for the inputs. http://people.redhat.com/rkhadgar/personal/fedora/librep.spec http://people.redhat.com/rkhadgar/personal/fedora/librep-0.17.1-1.src.rpm -- ritz -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Comment #17 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-03 07:25:57 EDT --- There is an example of emacs subpackages in gnuplot. For the rpath look at the guidelines, unless I am wrong it is more or less explained there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Comment #16 from ritz [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-13 12:48:45 EDT --- updated http://people.redhat.com/rkhadgar/personal/fedora/librep.spec http://people.redhat.com/rkhadgar/personal/fedora/librep-0.17.1-rc1.src.rpm is the emacs subpackage really required ? where do i find examples for these, i looked up subversion, libidn from what i could see on my system. and how do i remove the message below librep.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object some-libs librep.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/rep ['/usr/lib64'] -- ritz -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-12 05:56 EST ---
The checkout instructions should include a date or a -r switch
such that the same tarble is constructed even if there has been
some later changes in the svn.
The release is not right, it should be
Release:0.3.%{snapshot}%{?dist}
You should not use gzip on the info files, it is done automatically.
A dot is missing at the end of the -devel %description.
The --with-malloc-alignment=8 for specific arches is very scary and
doesn't scale well. Isn't it possible to achieve portability?
I suggest not having -f for the 2 first rm, such that you notice when the
files are not installed anymore. It should stay for
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_infodir}/dir since it may or may not be created depending on
the situation. This would lead to
rm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/*.la
rm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/rep/%{version}/%{_host}/*.la
rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_infodir}/dir
There is a missing
Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig
Also a missing Requires: automake for the devel package, or, alternatively
owning %{_datadir}/aclocal/.
A suggestion, I think it is nice to have a trailing / for directories
in %files to see that they are directories. It is just a personal preference,
though. This would lead to
%{_datadir}/rep/
and
%{_libdir}/rep/
Since there are emacs files, you should certainly follow
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Emacs
and also shouldn't the file also be byte-compiled?
There are these rpmbuild warnings:
warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/librep.so.9
warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/librep.so.9.4.0
There are still some .la files in -devel, like
/usr/lib/rep/0.17/i686-pc-linux-gnu/rep/data/tables.la
Aren't the files in /usr/lib/rep/0.17/i686-pc-linux-gnu/ needed for
rep at runtime?
It seems to me that %{_libdir}/rep/ is unowned.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-02 11:52 EST --- this is a svn pull of the stack, updated http://people.redhat.com/rkhadgar/personal/fedora/librep.spec http://people.redhat.com/rkhadgar/personal/fedora/librep-0.17-3.20071102svn.fc9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-18 20:24 EST --- Doesn't look like Ritesh is in cvsextras yet. This package builds fine and rpmlint only complains about the lack of docs in librep-devel. /usr/share/aclocal seems to be unowned. I think the -devel package needs a dependency on automake. If you're going to package a subversion checkout, please see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL for info on including instructions for duplicating the checkout. I need to be able to check out my own copy of the upstream source by following information in the specfile. Honestly I'd say this package is pretty close now, but I haven't done a complete review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-19 05:09 EST --- downgraded the spec srpm file http://people.redhat.com/rkhadgar/personal/fedora/librep.spec http://people.redhat.com/rkhadgar/personal/fedora/librep-0.17-3.20071102svn.fc9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-17 01:51 EST --- based on my understanding, i dont see any reason for a person to install both i386 and x86_64 version, in my box. will merge back librep-common into librep. librep is a scripted language, and relevant bindings to run all know application (to me) can be installed natively on x86_64. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-10 02:21 EST --- the jlc file are the same, atleast across i386,ia64, and ppc64. update spec file to include libtool in build dependency. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||431251 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-28 04:29 EST --- You are putting in librep-common a lot of byte-compiled .jlc files. Are you really sure that they are the same for all possible architectures? As for .jlc's, I've been shipping them in an arch-neutral package in Debian for over a year now, and nothing has broken since, so I guess they are ;) http://mail.gnome.org/archives/sawfish-list/2008-February/msg00013.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-28 11:17 EST --- ... and nothing has broken since ... That is a good hint but a pretty weak argument, appearences to the contrary. If those files were used mostly for i386 and x86_64 then there are many similarities here, including endianess. Checking in sources that a byte compiler is indeed arch-independent would be a different matter. I looked through installed noarch packages on one system and peeked at such few which could be a subpackage; like 'gimp-help', for example. They all appear to build separately; so this seems to support what I said in comment #7. OTOH is there really any good reason for somebody to try to install sawfish.i386 and sawfish.x86_64 at the same time which would require two variants of librep and would cause conflicts on files from common? I do not see any but possibly I miss something. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-27 09:42 EST --- Kool. Thanks, updated http://people.redhat.com/rkhadgar/personal/fedora/librep.spec http://people.redhat.com/rkhadgar/personal/fedora/librep-0.17-4.20071102svn.fc9.src.rpm Hitting one issue though. How do i build librep-common for noarch ? Using BuildArch: noarch with librep-common yields lots of error :( -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-27 18:34 EST ---
How do i build librep-common for noarch ?
You are putting in librep-common a lot of byte-compiled .jlc files.
Are you really sure that they are the same for all possible architectures?
In any case it does not seem possible to specify BuildArch for a
subpackage _on the same build_. The same source with two different
spec files and building twice could do it.
If I am mistaken somebody will tell me, I presume. :-) You would need
BuildArch: %{_arch} for other subpackages - would be my guess
(but that seems to override BuildArch settings for common).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-03 10:35 EST --- Updates posted based on feedback from Jason and Michal http://people.redhat.com/rkhadgar/personal/fedora/librep.spec http://people.redhat.com/rkhadgar/personal/fedora/librep-0.17-3.20071102svn.fc8.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-03 17:08 EST --- Thanks for corrections in comment #3. I just looked at some historical packages and not on wiki. :-) BTW, after find . -name .svn | xargs rm -rf find . -name .cvsignore | xargs rm rm -rf autom4te.cache in librep-0.17 directory a size of the original source archive drops down by roughly 2/3rd without, of course, affecting a compilation in any way and size differences in a resulting src.rpm are of a similar order. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-02 10:24 EST ---
This fails to build for me:
/bin/sh ../libtool --mode=link gcc -o repdoc repdoc.o -lgdbm
/bin/sh: ../libtool: No such file or directory
make[1]: *** [repdoc] Error 127
make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/librep-0.17/src'
make: *** [src/repdoc] Error 2
Adding BuildRequires: libtool gets things to progress further, until:
Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files
/var/tmp/librep-0.17-2.svn20071102.fc9-root-mockbuild
error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
/usr/share/info/dir
You need to explicitly delete this file, which is generated as part of the
texinfo compilation but should never be part of any package. At the end of
%install:
rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_infodir}/dir
Things build after that. rpmlint then says:
librep.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.17-2
0.17-2.svn20071102.fc9
Your changelog entries should match the version.
librep-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
This is OK, but you should consider whether any of the documentation you package
is more appropriate for the -devel package.
I notice a bunch of .la files packaged. Generally these should not be packaged;
do you have some specific reason for doing so?
Are the .jl and .jlc files arch-neutral? Otherwise they will conflict when both
i386 and x86_64 packages are installed together.
There'a a bunch of stuff installed into /usr/libexec/rep that seems better
suited to %{_libdir}/rep instead. Generally I'd expect to see only executables
in /usr/libexec. (See what gcc does, for example.) I do not know if this
opinion is widely held, however.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-02 20:41 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=293814)
-- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=293814action=view)
modified librep spec file
Some further remarks about this package:
.svn .cvsignore are superflous in a tar file.
Every file and directory in a tar file
has the same timestamp (possibly an svn deficiency).
/sbin/install-info is 'Prereq:' to install documentation
gmp should be in 'Requires:'
In %files section it should be just
%{_datadir}/rep
%{_libexecdir}/rep
%{_datadir}/emacs/site-lisp/*
or you will get leftovers after deinstalling the package
%{_datadir}/emacs/site-lisp/*
%{_infodir}/*.info*
possibly in 'devel'
Options for %configure are taken from old librep specs.
I cannot tell how necessary they are now but they definitely
work. Missing '--with-readline' is not good.
Modified spec file is attached.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-02 21:33 EST --- Please note that use of Prereq: is not allowed and is a blocker. Requires(pre): is probably what is intended, although it seems that other dependencies are a bit off in the specfile from comment #2 (Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig, /sbin/install-info is missing, for example.) For things like this you should just consult http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets and use the scriptlets and dependencies provided there. Also, I noticed that the name of the package violates the naming guidelines. svnMMDD is incorrect; the date goes first, followed by whatever you like (probably svn in this case). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||431249 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
