Bug 2098398

Please consider including Alexander Burger's excellent picolisp 
small footprint LISP interpreter: https://picolisp.com -
into Fedora.

I have written a pure "Shared-Library-Only" build of picolisp,
which I use in both a working bash-builtin and in an Apache Module -
I'd like to make these open source, available to any EPEL / Fedora
or Ubuntu user, but picolisp has not as yet been delivered to
Red Hat RPM users to my knowledge. It IS in Ubuntu / Debian
and Android Termux.

It is very powerful, succinct, clear, well documented - see:

   http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Category:PicoLisp

Do ask the author if it is OK : abu

I think it would be fine with him, he already
gave permission to Debian / Ubuntu ; I doubt
he'd want to be bothered with Fedora Package Management, though -

I am happy to maintain the PicoLisp package for Fedora / EPEL, 
keeping it up to date with Alex's latest release once a week or so.
                          
PicoLisp has a "less is more" programming philosophy:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  "Perfection is attained                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
 not when there is nothing left to add                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
 but when there is nothing left to take away.
"                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry).

I have found it to be ultra robust and reliable, and efficient,
when used correctly, when used incorrectly it core-dumps, or, if lucky,
can '(throw ...) an error condition / exception that can
be caught with (try (catch ...) (finally ...) (prog ...))).

The documentation is excellent, available from the REPL,
or as HTML (shipped in RPM as /usr/share/picolisp/doc) :
 https://picolisp.com/wiki/?Documentation .

Please give Fedora / RHEL users the benefits of PicoLisp,
enjoyed by Debian / Ubuntu / Android Termux users!

Self-Review Issue #1:
  Oops :
  $  rpm -qp --requires picolisp-22.6.17-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm 
  ...
  /data/data/com.termux/files/home/pil21/pil
  ...

Yes, the distro does include an optional PilBox Android Application,
which can be built, if requisite Android Tools are installed,
but the host Linux distro in no-way depends on this - it is
just one of many optional extras, that users can optionally
build, in the distro.

This was picked up by RPM's autoreqprov because:
  $ grep -RI '/data/data/com.termux/files/home/pil21/pil' .
  ./bin/pty:#!/data/data/com.termux/files/home/pil21/pil

./bin/pty is ONLY used on the Android Platform by PilBox .

I need to exclude this file somehow from the autoreqprov
generator ...

OK, .spec file now updated to exclude that problematic AutoReqProv.

Also updated .spec file to provide support for the '--with auto_download' option,
to enable download of the latest pil21.tgz before building of it commences, and
to determine the RPM version number dynamically from it.

There is an archive of the SRPM, the spec file, the RPM produced, and the build log,
from a '--with auto_download' build, at:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/169COH6WSItF614WWpoGbrgFdpUyB2JLr?usp=sharing

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.