[Fedora-packaging] Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting (Tuesday July 22)

[Anthony Green]

Jason Tibbitts wrote:
> I am on vacation so I haven't had all that much time to review things 
> properly, but one thing I noticed is that, as someone not familiar 
> with Lisp who might be reviewing packages, some of the guidelines 
> don't really enlighten me as to how I might actually tell if a 
> particular package meets them.  For example, I see that libraries 
> should be managed by "asdf" and that they should be able to load asdf 
> with some specific lisp code.  The guidelines, however, don't inform 
> me as to how I might tell if the package does those things.
Well, it does say where asdf system definition (.asd) files need to be 
installed.  I guess I'm assuming that the packager would realize that 
the library isn't managed by asdf if no .asd file is present upstream.  
I've small changes to clarify this.  I've also clarified that you should 
type "(require 'asdf)" at the REPL in order to test if the Lisp 
implementation is capable of loading asdf.  I think that if a package 
reviewer doesn't know what a REPL is, then they aren't qualified to 
review a Common Lisp implementation package (although Lisp libraries 
should be easily reviewable without any Lisp domain knowledge).
> Also, a specfile template would really be appreciated.  As it is, if 
> these guidelines were passed, I'd have no idea how to actually review 
> lisp packages.
I'll post a spec template for Lisp libraries.  I agree that this would 
be helpful.  But the current draft as written already says where things 
need to be installed and what the required dependencies are.  How can 
you say it gives you no idea how to review lisp packages?

Thanks,

AG


>
>  - J<
>
> -- 
> Fedora-packaging mailing list
> Fedora-packaging at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging