On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Pavel Raiskup <praiskup@xxxxxxxxxx> 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/ _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
