Re: %clisp_arches candidates?
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Pavel Raiskup <praiskup(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Is anybody able to define what architectures contain 'clisp'
package? Does it
make sense to have %clisp_arches? Then pleasee have a look at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381120
In part, clisp is constrained by the architectures supported by
ffcall. If you look in the ffcall script, you'll see that I once
listed every architecture supported by both ffcall and rpm, even those
that weren't supported by Fedora at the time. It looks like this:
%global ffcall_arches %{ix86} x86_64 amd64 %{alpha} armv3l armv4b
armv4l armv4tl armv5tel armv5tejl armv6l armv7l armv7hl armv7hnl
parisc hppa1.0 hppa1.1 hppa1.2 hppa2.0 ia64 m68k mips mipsel ppc
ppc8260 ppc8560 ppc32dy4 ppciseries ppcpseries %{power64} s390 s390x
%{sparc}
But then clisp has some assembly routines of its own that are
available only on certain architectures, which is why the spec file
contains this:
# See Red Hat bugs 238954 (ppc64) and 925155 (aarch64)
ExcludeArch: %{power64} aarch64
Both packages are mostly unmaintained upstream, and have been so for
several years. There has been a little bit of movement lately on both
packages, but only a very little. I haven't used clisp myself for
several years and mostly maintain the Fedora package out of nostalgia.
If somebody is motivated to do something with clisp, I am happy to
hand over the reins. I am also happy to stay on as comaintainer if
that would be helpful, but somebody who actually uses it would be a
better maintainer than me.
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/