Hi Joseph, I haven't managed yet to get iraf built in mock. I create an srpm using the two files you attach and another patch more from your previous mail. I then build the rpm using mock but the compilation fails. Have you used mock to build the srpms? If not, please do so. It's the only way to be sure that the dependencies are handled correctly. I would appreciate a lot if you could upload your working source rpm somewhere so that I can download it and recompile it in my system. And thanks a lot for your hard work. Regards, Sergio 2013/5/7 Joseph Wang <joequant(a)gmail.com&gt;: > I got Hello world on fedora 18. > > The main roadblock was that f2c.h on fedora has had the fortran types > changed a bit. >

I've gotten the SRPM to build with mock and uploaded a link to dropbox https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1025783/iraf-2.16-1.src.rpm On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Sergio Pascual < sergiopr(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote: > Hi Joseph, > > I haven't managed yet to get iraf built in mock. I create an srpm > using the two files you attach and another patch more from your > previous mail. I then build the rpm using mock but the compilation > fails. > > Have you used mock to build the srpms? If not, please do so. It's the > only way to be sure that the dependencies are handled correctly. > > I would appreciate a lot if you could upload your working source rpm > somewhere so that I can download it and recompile it in my system. > > And thanks a lot for your hard work. > > Regards, Sergio > > 2013/5/7 Joseph Wang <joequant(a)gmail.com&gt;: > > I got Hello world on fedora 18. > > > > The main roadblock was that f2c.h on fedora has had the fortran types > > changed a bit. > > >

Hi Joseph, Sergio, I am working on a Debian package for IRAF, so I am following the discussion here closely. I intend to base the Debian package on your work. There are, however, still some issues to be solved. As for other astronomy packages, it would probably be good to coordinate us here a bit, so that the packages match closely, that the Linux fragmentation does not make it too hard to switch between Debian and Fedora. Here are my thoughts for the Debian package. Feel free to ignore them or to discuss them here ;-) : Splitting into smaller packages =============================== Arch-dependent and arch-independent package ------------------------------------------- Most of the files are arch independent; it does not make sense to duplicate them for every architecture. This is important for Debian which has a dozens of official and inofficial ports, but may be an issue for (potential) fedora ports as well. Extending to other architectures seems mainly a problem of the zsvjmp.s file, which already exists for i386, x64_64, and ppc (and others). Since this code is quite small, it is probably not too difficult to port it to the oder Fedora and Debian architectures; I could ask port maintainers to help writing the code once it works for the main architectures. Documentation would be another sub-package (which would be an optional installation), as well as maybe a -dev or -src package (which contains the files needed to rebuild/update the IRAF package, if this is needed at all -- I have doubts here). Split-off of large subpackages ------------------------------ I would split off the VO and NOAO packages. I am not sure whether everyone needs these packages, so they could be made optional. Both could be also split into arch-dependent, arch-independent and documentation packages. Maybe other sub-packages are useful as well. Directory tree ============== According to the FHS, the architecture independent files should go into /usr/share/iraf/ (is this %_{datadir}/iraf?), which then are linked into /usr/lib/iraf/ (in Debian better /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/iraf/ to allow multiarch). So, the IRAF base dir could look like $ ls -l $iraf drwxrwxr-x 2 oles 4096 Okt 18 2012 bin drwxrwxr-x 2 oles 4096 Okt 18 2012 dev -> /usr/share/iraf/dev drwxrwxr-x 4 oles 4096 Okt 18 2012 doc -> /usr/share/doc/iraf drwxrwxr-x 2 oles 4096 Okt 18 2012 extern -> /usr/share/iraf/extern -rw-rw-r-- 1 oles 0 Okt 18 2012 HS.PCIX.GEN drwxrwxr-x 2 oles 4096 Okt 18 2012 include -> /usr/include/iraf -rw-rw-r-- 1 oles 0 Okt 18 2012 IRAF.NET -rw-rw-r-- 1 oles 0 Okt 18 2012 IS.PORT.GEN drwxrwxr-x 6 oles 4096 Okt 18 2012 lib -> /usr/share/iraf/lib [...] drwxrwxr-x 4 oles 4096 Okt 18 2012 unix/ drwxrwxr-x 2 oles 4096 Mai 13 11:47 util -> /usr/share/iraf/util drwxrwxr-x 13 oles 4096 Okt 18 2012 vo/ I removed the bin.* here completely; the binaries are stored directly in /usr/lib/iraf/bin/ (resp. /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/iraf/bin/ for multiarch). The IRAF subdirectories (unix, vo, noao) I would handle in a similar manner. Patches ======= I would propose not to use one huge patch, but to split it up into smaller patches, by subject. As far as I analyzed your patch, it could be split up into: fix_fncache.patch fortran.patch irafuser_csh.patch libc.patch link_executables.patch mksys.patch shared_readline.patch unop_int.patch voclient.patch vodata.patch xc.patch Copyright ========= To your (Sergio) issue, I have a small comment: Sergio Pascual <sergiopr(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; writes: > * The software in iraf is under different licenses. fedora-review checks the > files in the source tree and tries to group them under license. The present > licenses are: BSD (3 clauses), BSD (4 clauses), GPL v1 or later, GPl v2 or > later, CDDL, MIT/X11. I'm not a lawyer, but CDDL and BSD (4 clauses) are not > GPL compatible, so the combined work cannot fulfill the requirements of every > license. As far as I analyzed the licenses, CDDL is used for unix/boot/xyacc/* and unix/hlib/stdarg-solaris.h. BSD-4 is used only in unix/hlib/libc/stdarg-freebsd.h. The stdarg-*.h files are not used for Linux, so they are not part of a combined work in Debian or Fedora. xyacc is used to build the system. The output of xyacc is not necessarily licensed by CDDL. xyacc is also not linked to GPL code. Perhaps it may be omitted completely from the binary distribution? It could also go into a separate (CDDL-licensed) package, if there is a use for it. Best regards Ole _______________________________________________ Fedora astronomy mailing list astronomy(a)lists.fedoraproject.org http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Astronomy https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/astronomy

Wouldn't be safer to use ${HOME}/.local/share/iraf/imdir instead of ${HOME}/.local/share/imdir?