rpmlint suggests following files could/should be packaged in a -devel subpkg: %files devel %defattr(-,root,root,-) %{_libdir}/gcl-%{version}/h/ %{_libdir}/gcl-%{version}/unixport/lib*.a Assuming, of course, you don't think this is a hairbrained idea... (-: BTW, any reason gcl hasn't been built on/for development/fc5 yet?
(In reply to comment #0) > rpmlint suggests following files could/should be packaged in a -devel subpkg: > > %files devel > %defattr(-,root,root,-) > %{_libdir}/gcl-%{version}/h/ > %{_libdir}/gcl-%{version}/unixport/lib*.a > > Assuming, of course, you don't think this is a hairbrained idea... (-: We could do this, I would prefer not to, unless we know exactly what should go into the devel package. I consider gcl a development package itself, so the problem isn't one :-) > BTW, any reason gcl hasn't been built on/for development/fc5 yet? Just tried again to build on fc5: http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/319-gcl-2.6.7-4.fc5/i386/build.log If you come up with a patch, please go ahead! BTW, I implemented the same personality hack as in sbcl. In any case, we should communicate with upstream to make gcl compiler better. I don't think it is a high priority though, as we have already clisp and sbcl.
> I consider gcl a development package itself Good point, nevermind. > In any case, we should communicate with upstream to make gcl compiler better. Yeah, at least let them know compiling fails with gcc-4.0.2 (assuming it's a gcc and not a glibc thing).