Jason Tibbitts wrote:
Anthony Green wrote:
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).
Wow, really? I guess that in that case all I can do is wish you luck
in getting any packages reviewed at all.
Remember that I'm making a distinction between Lisp implementations and
Lisp libraries. The Common Lisp situation is similar to that of Java,
in that there are multiple implementations of the language runtime, and
many library packages that are designed to work with any of the
implementations. Fedora's Java packaging guidelines only cover java
libraries, and ignore the implementation side. I think that packaging a
Java implementation, much like packaging a Lisp implementation, requires
a certain amount of specialized domain knowledge. That's probably why
it was omitted from the Java packaging guidelines.
Well, that and that I'm inclined to vote against guidelines which
don't explain things sufficiently so that the available reviewer pool
is capable of understanding them.
I could simply drop the Lisp implementation packaging guidelines from my
draft (to mirror our Java guidelines), but I'd rather not since what I
have is better than nothing. All of the major FOSS Common Lisp
implementations are already in Fedora, so it's not like we'll need many
reviewers with the rudimentary Lisp knowledge necessary to deal with them.
AG
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
