Spec Name or Url: http://apt.kde-redhat.org/apt/fedora/all/SRPMS.stable/maxima-5.9.1-1.src.rpm SRPM Name or Url: http://apt.kde-redhat.org/apt/fedora/SPECS/maxima-5.9.1-1.spec Description: Maxima is a full symbolic computation program. It is full featured doing symbolic manipulation of polynomials, matrices, rational functions, integration, Todd-coxeter, graphing, bigfloats. It has a symbolic debugger source level debugger for maxima code. Maxima is based on the original Macsyma developed at MIT in the 1970's. It is quite reliable, and has good garbage collection, and no memory leaks. It comes with hundreds of self tests.
Added (theoretical) dependancies on cmucl, sbcl also submitted for Review. Will have to wait for maxima-5.9.2 before trying them.
I maintain clisp which is now in Extras. Maxima builds fine with clisp so I would suggest to make a maxima package with clisp only (for now at least).
maxima-5.9.1-1.spec is configured for clisp only atm (specfile snippet): ## Which runtimes to build/enable? %define _with_clisp 1 %define _without_cmucl 1 # gcl busted on Fedora Core (3/4) %define _without_gcl 1 %define _without_sbcl 1
Some time ago I made a simplified version of your .spec file: http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/spec/maxima.spec It may be useful to you.
Cool - been meaning to check this out! gemi - do you want to be reviewer? Issues: - Rename maxima-5.9.1-1.spec to maxima.spec - Why are you disabling the debug package? - make check should be in %check section - are you sure you need: %define clisp_ver %{expand:%%(rpm -q --qf '%%{VERSION}' clisp )} Requires: clisp >= %{clisp_ver} - rpmlint: W: maxima infopage-not-gzipped /usr/share/info/maxima.info W: maxima infopage-not-gzipped /usr/share/info/maxima.info-1 W: maxima infopage-not-gzipped /usr/share/info/maxima.info-10 W: maxima infopage-not-gzipped /usr/share/info/maxima.info-11 W: maxima infopage-not-gzipped /usr/share/info/maxima.info-12 W: maxima infopage-not-gzipped /usr/share/info/maxima.info-13 W: maxima infopage-not-gzipped /usr/share/info/maxima.info-14 W: maxima infopage-not-gzipped /usr/share/info/maxima.info-15 W: maxima infopage-not-gzipped /usr/share/info/maxima.info-16 W: maxima infopage-not-gzipped /usr/share/info/maxima.info-2 W: maxima infopage-not-gzipped /usr/share/info/maxima.info-3 W: maxima infopage-not-gzipped /usr/share/info/maxima.info-4 W: maxima infopage-not-gzipped /usr/share/info/maxima.info-5 W: maxima infopage-not-gzipped /usr/share/info/maxima.info-6 W: maxima infopage-not-gzipped /usr/share/info/maxima.info-7 W: maxima infopage-not-gzipped /usr/share/info/maxima.info-8 W: maxima infopage-not-gzipped /usr/share/info/maxima.info-9 W: maxima manpage-not-gzipped /usr/share/man/man1/maxima.1 Thought this happens automatically. W: maxima incoherent-version-in-changelog 5.9.1.1cvs20050825 5.9.1-1.fc4 Might want to pull this. E: maxima no-binary Should be noarch then. W: maxima non-standard-dir-in-usr libexec Can it be changed? Not a showstopper... W: maxima-gui no-documentation No big deal. E: maxima-runtime-clisp binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/maxima/5.9.1/binary-clisp/lisp.run ['/usr/lib64'] Probably need a --disable-rpath to configure. W: maxima-runtime-clisp no-documentation No big deal
> Why are you disabling the debug package? Not sure anymore... I *think* maxima had trouble with one of the -runtimes if debuginfo was enabled. I suppose we can turn it back on and find out if it's still needed. > - are you sure you need: > %define clisp_ver %{expand:%%(rpm -q --qf '%%{VERSION}' clisp )} > Requires: clisp >= %{clisp_ver} Yep. Pretty sure, but I'll go back and verify. If it is, it probably should be changed to Requires: clisp = %{clisp_ver} to be on the safe side. > - rpmlint: > W: maxima infopage-not-gzipped /usr/share/info/maxima.info Purposely disabled compressed info files for maxima's built-in help function to work properly. > W: maxima incoherent-version-in-changelog 5.9.1.1cvs20050825 5.9.1-1.fc4 > Might want to pull this. Probably, though I'm anxiously awaiting 5.9.2 to be released (soon hopefully). > E: maxima no-binary > Should be noarch then. I'd love to, but parent and all child packages need to be the same arch, so I don't think it'll work.
"It is quite reliable, and has good garbage collection, and no memory leaks. It comes with hundreds of self tests." I would leave this out of the description. Garbage collection and memory leaks is anyways mostly a feature of the underlying lisp implementation. Do you think it is important to make a main package and subpackage for the lisp. binary? I would rather have a package maxima that is build with clisp. If anyone wants to use e.g. sbcl, he can build it himself. If you use a cvs snapshot, the date should be reflected in the release tag. texi2dvi is missing in tetex3, but texi2dvi -p does the same thing. IMHO the spec file is little complicated. Is really necessary to have all the optional stuff? Why not build for clisp only, bundle the prebuilt doc, and clean up the spec (at least for now).
>IMHO the spec file is little complicated. Is really necessary to have all >the optional stuff? Why not build for clisp only Agreed, especially since clisp is the only lisp that (realiably) works on Fedora Core at the moment (and is already in Extras).
Simplify. Spec Name or Url: http://apt.kde-redhat.org/apt/fedora/all/SRPMS.stable/maxima-5.9.1-3.src.rpm SRPM Name or Url: http://apt.kde-redhat.org/apt/fedora/SPECS/maxima-5.9.1-3.spec * Mon Aug 29 2005 Rex Dieter <rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net> 5.9.1-3 - trim %%description - drop maxima book generation (use pregenerated copy) - drop emaxima subpkg bits - -src: lisp source subpkg * Fri Aug 26 2005 Rex Dieter <rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net> 5.9.1-2 - re-instate %%debuginfo - put 'make check' in %%check section
Error when building with mock: Processing files: maxima-debuginfo-5.9.1-3.fc4 error: Could not open %files file /builddir/build/BUILD/maxima-5.9.1/debugfiles.list: No such file or directory RPM build errors: Could not open %files file /builddir/build/BUILD/maxima-5.9.1/debugfiles.list: No such file or directory This was probably the reason for %define debug_package %{nil}
I saw that too, but only when building against gcl. (?)
Spec Name or Url: http://apt.kde-redhat.org/apt/fedora/all/SRPMS.stable/maxima-5.9.1-4.src.rpm SRPM Name or Url: http://apt.kde-redhat.org/apt/fedora/SPECS/maxima-5.9.1-4.spec %changelog * Tue Sep 06 2005 Rex Dieter <rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net> 5.9.1-4 - workaround lack of debuginfo.list when building --with gcl
Builds fine in mock. Go ahead and import.
Please note, that clisp fails on the ppc build-server, so you have to "ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64" for now.
Gerard, could you open a bugzilla entry for the "clisp fails on ppc" issue, so I watch it as a blocker for re-enabling ppc support?
There is already a bug 166347.
BTW, clisp is available on FC-3 and FC-4, so you request builds for these platforms too.
Yes, please! Would love to see this replace my hand-rolled maxima RPMs on FC-4... Should I open a separate Bugzilla request for that? I assume that there is a Bugzilla component for it now.
Alex, no need, I was just waiting for the FC-3/4 branches to be made in cvs before requesting their builds. (done just now).
Thanks, Rex! Look forwarding to seeing them in the repository. Although, it seems that a Bugzilla component still needs to be created for maxima. Can't see it yet in: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/describecomponents.cgi?product=Fedora%20Extras
Dunno about bugzilla (??). Per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/NewPackageProcess, it says that the bugzilla component would get created when I did "Step 9: Add an entry to the owners.list". Maybe we just need to give it more time.
I opened up a new bugzilla entry on the missing component: bug #167786.
Since the "maxima" Bugzilla component hasn't yet been added, I'll also report a packaging-related issue here. It would be useful if the subpackage "maxima-runtime-clisp" could "Obsolete: maxima-exec-clisp", which is the name of the package that the upstream SRPM at: http://maxima.sourceforge.net/download.shtml uses for that package. Otherwise it keeps the old maxima-exec-clisp package around even though it replaces the files. I imagine that there will be several people upgrading from those older packages.
We included only Obsoletes: maxima-exec-clisp as that was the only exec/runtime provided upstream.
We included only Obsoletes: maxima-exec-cmucl as that was the only exec/runtime provided upstream.
(Ignore comment #24... (-:)
Ah, but I rebuilt the SRPM and enabled the clisp bindings. I know that in doing that I then am taking responsibility if it doesn't work, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who has done that. It would certainly be nice if it "just worked" for all possible backends, and it would have a certain symmetry to it if all maxima-runtime-* subpackages Obsoleted their maxima-exec-* subpackages.
"maxima" component has been created, so removing blocking bug, but new components still aren't being created reliably.