Bug 169731
Summary: | Review Request: ecl - Embeddable Common-Lisp | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Gérard Milmeister <gemi> | ||||
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | John Mahowald <jpmahowald> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | David Lawrence <dkl> | ||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-extras-list | ||||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||
URL: | http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/4/i386/SRPMS.gemi/ecl-0.9g-1.src.rpm | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | 2006-03-16 22:09:08 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
Embargoed: | |||||||
Bug Depends On: | |||||||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 | ||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Gérard Milmeister
2005-10-02 12:35:01 UTC
Using http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/4/i386/SRPMS.gemi/ecl-0.9h-1.src.rpm Missing BuildRequires: m4 texinfo Created attachment 121806 [details]
rpmlint output
Could use a -devel package
I am not sure it makes much sense to split off a devel package. Ecl can be considered a development package in itself (we took this view for clisp for example). IF a devel is split off, then we must decide what belongs to it (apart from the .h files). (In reply to comment #3) > I am not sure it makes much sense to split off a devel package. > Ecl can be considered a development package in itself (we took > this view for clisp for example). > IF a devel is split off, then we must decide what belongs to it > (apart from the .h files). I notice a clisp-devel package, for what it's worth. install.html is not needed, do not include. also, xorg-x11-devel BuildRequires is unneeded. Missing m4 and texinfo as per comment 1. Let's get this to build first. (In reply to comment #4) > I notice a clisp-devel package, for what it's worth. Oh, I meant gcl. What you propose that should go into the devel package? (In reply to comment #5) > What you propose that should go into the devel package? Any headers or other devel files that would be used to build something against the program, but not to use it. If you required certain headers to use the ecl compiler then they don't need to be, for example gcc includes some devel files. I don't use this so I do not know what the typical use case requires. As far as I could find out, compiling with ecl (which arguably is one of the main uses of the package) requires the files in /usr/lib/ecl (including the .h files). Thus, I prefer not to split the package. (In reply to comment #7) > As far as I could find out, compiling with ecl > (which arguably is one of the main uses of the > package) requires the files in /usr/lib/ecl > (including the .h files). Thus, I prefer not to > split the package. Fine with me. For FC5 you'll have to change to modular X BuildRequires if you need X stuff. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Xorg/Modularization I made some small adjustements: http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/4/i386/SRPMS.gemi/ecl-0.9h-3.src.rpm I left the old BuildRequires for X for now, since I test on FC4. As soon as the package is imported into cvs, it will be tested with new BuildRequires for devel. You will likely want to make a note of the lack of a devel package in the spec. * perl is not needed as a BuildRequires Good: - rpmlint checks return: * some devel-file-in-non-devel-package, ignoring * dangling symlinks from the debuginfo package back to the build dir, harmless W: ecl-debuginfo objdump-failed, not serious - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines, exception for no devel package - license (LGPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on FC4 i386 - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file APPROVED |