Bug 427391
| Summary: | Review Request: cl-asdf - Another System Definition Facility | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Anthony Green <green> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Michel Lind <michel> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, notting, rdieter |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | michel:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2008-07-13 14:53:40 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: | 427411 | ||
|
Description
Anthony Green
2008-01-03 17:26:09 UTC
SRPM link broken, by the way; had to cut-and-paste to combine with spec URL. Does the source not have any upstream URL we can link to? Ignore previous question; upstream policy is still to release using CVS. Perhaps put a comment above the Source line? (though I guess one can infer the lack of tarballs from the versioning scheme). One more question -- presumably installing this does not conflict with SBCL's own bundled copy of ASDF? +1 Approved. MUST • rpmlint: OK • package name: OK • spec file name: OK • package guideline-compliant: OK • license complies with guidelines: OK • license field accurate: OK • license file not deleted: OK • spec in US English: OK • spec legible: OK • source matches upstream: OK • builds under >= 1 archs, others excluded: noarch: OK • build dependencies complete: trivially OK (none) • own all directories: OK • no dupes in %files: OK • permission: OK • %clean RPM_BUILD_ROOT: OK • macros used consistently: OK • Package contains code: OK • clean buildroot before install: OK • filenames UTF-8: OK SHOULD • package build in mock on all architectures: OK • package functioned as described: suggestion on how to test? • scriplets are sane: OK New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: cl-asdf Short Description: Another System Definition Facility Owners: green Branches: devel InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes cvs done. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: cl-asdf New Branches: el6 Owners: green InitialCC: rdieter I'd like to bring this package into el6 for common-lisp-controller. Git done (by process-git-requests). Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: common-lisp-controller New Branches: epel7 Owners: green InitialCC: rdieter Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: cl-asdf New Branches: epel7 Owners: green InitialCC: rdieter Git done (by process-git-requests). |