Spec URL: http://cicku.me/pasdoc.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/pasdoc-0.13.0-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Pasdoc generates documentation for Pascal units. It takes descriptions from comments within the source code. Documentation output formats include HTML and LaTeX. Object Pascal, FreePascal and Delphi specific features are supported. Fedora Account System Username: cicku
Due to minimal requirement mentioned in http://pasdoc.sipsolutions.net/CompilingPasDoc, we should use lazarus 1.0.10+ to build it. Currently Fedora doesn't have its latest version.
Note that the requirement about Lazarus >= 1.0.10, mentioned on http://pasdoc.sipsolutions.net/CompilingPasDoc , applies only to the GUI application "pasdoc_gui". The command-line binary "pasdoc" only requires FPC (Free Pascal Compiler) >= 2.2.0. Fedora 19 already contains fpc-2.6.2-1.fc19 (looking at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-6904/fpc-2.6.2-1.fc19 ) so this should not be a problem. Also, Fedora 20 contains Lazarus lazarus-1.0.14-1.fc20 (looking at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988497 and https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lazarus-1.0.14-1.fc20 ). So it should be possible to get pasdoc with GUI in Fedora 20. Also, PasDoc is getting included in Debian and Ubuntu (see https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=747547 ). It would be cool to have PasDoc available in Fedora too :)
(In reply to Michalis Kamburelis from comment #2) > Note that the requirement about Lazarus >= 1.0.10, mentioned on > http://pasdoc.sipsolutions.net/CompilingPasDoc , applies only to the GUI > application "pasdoc_gui". The command-line binary "pasdoc" only requires FPC > (Free Pascal Compiler) >= 2.2.0. Fedora 19 already contains fpc-2.6.2-1.fc19 > (looking at > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-6904/fpc-2.6.2-1.fc19 ) > so this should not be a problem. > > Also, Fedora 20 contains Lazarus lazarus-1.0.14-1.fc20 (looking at > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988497 and > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lazarus-1.0.14-1.fc20 ). So it > should be possible to get pasdoc with GUI in Fedora 20. > > Also, PasDoc is getting included in Debian and Ubuntu (see > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=747547 ). It would be cool > to have PasDoc available in Fedora too :) Hi Michalis, thanks for developing pasdoc. I have question about manpage in debian package, as its not officially supported IMO, and some information e.g the version number of pasdoc in the manpages is dated. I'd like to hear some opinions to determine whether the manpage should be built or not.
NEW SRPM URL: https://mega.co.nz/#!OApSUQ4I!aG8oy0bx9P2dG-FzPlDqqr0KLEU0iTGM1bemB1tqbeE
> I have question about manpage in debian package, as its not officially > supported IMO, and some information e.g the version number of pasdoc in the > manpages is dated. > > I'd like to hear some opinions to determine whether the manpage should be > built or not. The manpage for pasdoc in Debian package is simply generated by help2man. It does contain the correct version and command-line options, as far as I can see. It is not the most beautiful manpage, but it's better than none :) I think it's a good idea to provide it, but it's up to you. It does not provide any extra information than what is already available from "pasdoc --help" and "pasdoc --version".
(In reply to Michalis Kamburelis from comment #5) > The manpage for pasdoc in Debian package is simply generated by help2man. It > does contain the correct version and command-line options, as far as I can > see. > > It is not the most beautiful manpage, but it's better than none :) I think > it's a good idea to provide it, but it's up to you. It does not provide any > extra information than what is already available from "pasdoc --help" and > "pasdoc --version". Alright I won't build it. I don't think it would provide any more useful info other than the stock help.
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.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.