Spec URL: http://callkalpa.fedorapeople.org/picolisp/picolisp.spec SRPM URL: http://callkalpa.fedorapeople.org/picolisp/picolisp-3.0.9-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Hi I just finished packaging picolisp. I highly appreciate a review. PicoLisp can be used in two ways. One as a programming language and the other as a dedicated application server framework. When compared with other programming languages PicoList has two characteristics, an integrated database and an equivalence of code and data which makes PicoLisp so special. Beside these, PicoLisp is a very simple and succinct, yet expressive language.
The license text attached in the sources indicates it is MIT license. Any reason why the license is mentioned as GPLV2+ in the spec file?
Hi, Some additional rpmlint issues 1)Issue about exectuable stack. I am not sure whether picoLisp would require executable stack. We can leave this for now 2) Empty debuginfo package issue. I checked the makefile and executables are being stripped. Also, for 64 bit platform, the "as" program needs to be run with -g option. I have created patches for these. I will attach them here.
Thanks Lakshmi. Waiting for your patches.
Created attachment 567517 [details] Patch for fixing the empty debuginfo package issue
Created attachment 567519 [details] Patch for fixing the empty debuginfo package issue for 64 bit
I have added RPM_OPT_FLAGS and LDFLAGS. I am not sure LDFLAGS are needed though. But it will be better to have RPM_OPT_FLAGS. The actual fix for debuginfo package is replacing strip with echo and adding -g to "as" or gcc.
(In reply to comment #4) > Patch for fixing the empty debuginfo package issue Pushing $(RPM_OPT_FLAGS) inside Cygwin ifdef looks spectacular :) Kalpa, you might have a look at Debian patches either, and there's 3.1.0 by now.
Spec URL: http://callkalpa.fedorapeople.org/picolisp/picolisp.spec SRPM URL: http://callkalpa.fedorapeople.org/picolisp/picolisp-3.1.0-1.fc16.src.rpm I did a scratch build for 3.1.0. 64 bit failed while 32 bit was a success. Can any of you help me spot the issue with 64 bit?
Spec URL: http://callkalpa.fedorapeople.org/picolisp/picolisp.spec SRPM URL: http://callkalpa.fedorapeople.org/picolisp/picolisp-3.1.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Now it seems ok
"Requires: java" looks a bit overrated to me as it's only needed for "Ersatz PicoLisp" (see http://software-lab.de/down.html), not for the native binary.
@Kalpa Thanks. Will review this.
removed "Requires: java" Spec URL: http://callkalpa.fedorapeople.org/picolisp/picolisp.spec SRPM URL: http://callkalpa.fedorapeople.org/picolisp/picolisp-3.1.0-1.fc17.src.rpm
@Kalpa, After installing picolisp,I ran pil on the command line and got an error but it recovered. $pil "/usr/lib/picolisp/lib.l" -- Open error: No such file or directory The executable looks for the .l files in /usr/lib. But they are packaged in /usr/lib64
Created attachment 652233 [details] spec accepted into ALT Linux Sisyphus Here's a brief overview of changes to get it working (basically a closer look at the INSTALL file and translation into spec lingo without trying to be even smarter ass): %define _libdir %_usr/lib # ... %install mkdir -p %buildroot{%_bindir,%_libdir/%name,%_datadir} cp -a bin/{picolisp,pil} %buildroot%_bindir/ # TODO: emacs subpackage rm -rf lib/el # lib/ and lib.l cp -a lib* %buildroot%_libdir/%name/ # as per INSTALL ln -s ../lib/%name %buildroot%_datadir/%name %files %doc CHANGES CREDITS README %_bindir/* %_libdir/%name/ %_datadir/%name/
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.
This review request is really old. If you still want to include this package in Fedora, please clear the needinfo tag and explain how you intend to continue. I can review. Otherwise, just leave the tag in place and this request should be automatically closed in a month.
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.