debian clisp package

[Luca Capello]

Hi Sam!

I should apologize for being late: I planned to reply to your mail in
the next days and providing patches.  Unfortunately, I was then caught
by other work, both for my real life and for Debian.

BTW, I read the pkg-common-lisp mailing list on a regular basis, so you
do not need to cc: me.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 21:50:39 +0200, Sam Steingold wrote:
> now that clisp 2.47 has been released, you are 3 releases behind. :-)

I know, but as you have probably heard Debian is (still) frozen, trying
to release a new stable.  Now, while this does not mean that new
packages can be uploaded to experimental, I would prefer to avoid any
work until lenny will be out.

> A couple notes about the debian package:
>
> 1. README.Debian says "In order to use the "disassemble" function you
> must install gdb". this is NOT true. gdb is only necessary to
> disassemble functions written in C, e.g., car. functions written in
> lisp and compiled to byte code can be disassembled without gdb.

Something like the following patch?

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
diff --git a/debian/README.Debian b/debian/README.Debian
index 999fd48..b4ea3e7 100644
--- a/debian/README.Debian
+++ b/debian/README.Debian
@@ -16,5 +16,6 @@ system calls to be made from clisp (e.g. resolve-host-ipaddr).

 disassemble
 -----------
-    In order to use the "disassemble" function you must install gdb.
-
+    In order to use the "disassemble" function written in C you must
+install gdb.  Any other function written in Common Lisp and compiled
+to bytecode can be disassembled without gdb.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

> 2. you are distributing clisp-link.1 - I don't think this is a good idea.

Debian is quite strict WRT to executables, i.e. every executables should
have a manpage.  That is why I wrote it [1].  Thus, shipping it is in
any case a win for Debian, but let me check your remarks.

> A. clisp-link is rarely invoked by the user at the command line,
> usually it is used from Makefiles.

While I agree on this, I also know that people tend to not follow
upstream recommendation and documentation.  And in my experience, the
first thing I do when I try a new program is to test the --help|-h
options and `man program` ;-)

> B. clisp-link is already fully documented in the impnotes.

Debian ships the impnotes as part of the clisp-doc package, which means
that in most of the case the impnotes will not be available together
with the clisp-link executable.

My idea was to provide the basic notions, i.e. the same thing we can
discover if you read the source.  Maybe should I add a note in the
manpage to direct the user to the full documentation in the impnotes?

> C. you are installing clisp-link.1 in /usr/share/man/man1 together
> with clisp.1 but clisp-link does not go into /usr/bin together with
> clisp, it lives in /usr/lib/clisp/ which is not normally in the $PATH.

This is a good point: however, I cannot find any other manpage section
more suitable for clisp-link.1.  Obviously, if Debian decides to drop
it, this point will be fixed as well.

> 3. clisp-dev appears to depend on gcc 4.1 (at least when I try to
> install clisp-dev on ubuntu, it wants to install gcc 4.1 in addition
> to the standard gcc 4.2, see
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/274824).

It seems that the version you tried is an old one, since the one in
Debian does not depend on any gcc version (both clisp and clisp-dev
packages), at least from version 1:2.43-1.

> this is eminently wrong. even if clisp itself is compiled with gcc
> 4.1, it can link with modules compiled with gcc 4.2, so there is no
> reason for clisp-dev to pull gcc 4.1 (the same for bison, xutils,
> groff &c &c).

This could be a problem for Debian: if we build clisp with a specific
gcc version, then we should depend on that version, since different gcc
versions can be installed at the same time.

> PS. Is there a way to report debian bugs other than via e-mail as
> described in http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting ?

No, and I am happy for this, since every web-based BTS I tried is IMHO a
mess, while I can easily work from my Emacs whenever I need to deal with
the Debian BTS :-D

Please just send a mail to submit at bugs.debian.org, with the Package
pseudoheader [2]: this is the only required information for the bug to
be assigned to the correct package (and thus the notification being sent
to the maintainer).  I will take care of adding the missing information
(like the package version) and/or any other intervention is needed.

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca

Footnotes: 
[1] I still remember that you asked me to convert clisp-link.1 to
    docbook/xml, but since it is a completely new language to me I need
    to sit down and learn it
      http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.clisp.devel/18633/focus=18636
[2] http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting#pseudoheader
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 314 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-common-lisp-devel/attachments/20081104/77388f18/attachment.pgp