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@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
