Spec URL: http://codeblock.fedorapeople.org/packages/chicken/chicken.spec SRPM URL: http://codeblock.fedorapeople.org/packages/chicken/chicken-4.8.0.3-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: CHICKEN is a compiler for the Scheme programming language. CHICKEN produces portable, efficient C, supports almost all of the R5RS Scheme language standard, and includes many enhancements and extensions. Fedora Account System Username: codeblock rpmlint output: ricky@t520 ~/rpmbuild/SPECS$ rpmlint chicken.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. ricky@t520 ~/rpmbuild/SPECS$ rpmlint chicken chicken-scheme.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/chicken/chicken-config.h chicken-scheme.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libchicken.so chicken-scheme.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/chicken/chicken.h 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Justification: These are actually runtime dependencies - Chicken generates C code from Scheme code, and the C code uses these devel files. There are two other bz reviews for this package, but both of them stalled due to unresponsiveness. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819919 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874980 Aside from those being stalled, they also don't bootstrap the Scheme code - they only compile the released, generated, C code. The FPC recommends bootstrapping in this case, and has approved my request to do so, here: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/285#comment:6 ) To try building this for review, build the spec as-is (with %bootstrap = 1), install the resulting RPM to the buildroot, set %bootstrap = 0, and build the new srpm in the buildroot. If using mock, make sure to pass --no-clean, so the buildroot doesn't get nuked between the two phases.
Taking for a review
Overall, looks to be an exemplary piece of packaging work. Well done. My only question: Provides: chicken-scheme-doc = %{version}-%{release} Whats the point of that, if it already provides a chicken-doc package? Alternatively, why not rename the whole package to chicken-scheme instead of just chicken.
I will nuke the Provides in favor of keeping the package named "chicken" - it's called chicken in most distros: http://wiki.call-cc.org/platforms Thanks.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: chicken Short Description: A practical and portable Scheme system Owners: codeblock Branches: f18 f19 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
chicken-4.8.0.3-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/chicken-4.8.0.3-3.el6
chicken-4.8.0.3-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/chicken-4.8.0.3-3.fc18
chicken-4.8.0.3-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
chicken-4.8.0.3-4.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/chicken-4.8.0.3-4.fc18
chicken-4.8.0.3-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/chicken-4.8.0.3-4.el6
chicken-4.8.0.3-4.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
chicken-4.8.0.3-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
With regard to bug 1001262 (duplicate docs due to F20UnversionedDocDirs change), the following questions have turned up: * Why has a separate -doc subpackage been created for the documentation? It is only 300KB small. It would be really okay to include it in the base package. That would also be a very easy way to fix bug 1001262. * Why is the -doc subpackage not "noarch"? * For the base package, a split between runtime and build-time/development would have made sense. Compiled programs will be linked with libchicken, which could reside in a -libs runtime subpackage.