Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: acl2 - Automated reasoning system based on Common Lisp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506567 Summary: Review Request: acl2 - Automated reasoning system based on Common Lisp Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ReportedBy: amdunn@xxxxxxxxx QAContact: extras-qa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CC: notting@xxxxxxxxxx, fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://www.openproofs.org/packages/acl2/acl2.spec SRPM URL: https://www.openproofs.org/packages/acl2/acl2-3.5-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: ACL2 is an automated reasoning system developed at Computational Logic, Inc., and the University of Texas at Austin. It is valuable if you want to prove properties about a system that can be easily modeled as recursive functions in a Lisp-based language. ACL2 stands for "A Computational Logic for Applicative Common Lisp", and is simultaneously a computational logic, formal specification language, programming system, and theorem prover. Its syntax is based on Common Lisp, and many ACL2 specifications are executable (depending on how ACL2 is used). This package is largely complete in that it allows the user to use the vast majority of the functionality of ACL2, the main thing that isn't quite right (that I've been working with upstream to fix) is that some of the (supplementary - program works without them) elisp files don't seem to compile and/or give warnings. I have tested a built version out with some of my own basic usage and have encountered no problems (eg: books load properly despite having moved things around - to comply with packaging policy - compared to their original locations in a usual install). rpmlint output with my comments: acl2.i386: E: devel-dependency acl2-books-source acl2-books-source is not really a "devel" repository in that it contains the text of the theorem libraries, not of the LISP that runs ACL2 itself. It is critical to using the theorem prover to have this text available. My naming convention matches the Debian package. acl2.i386: E: no-binary acl2.i386: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib I believe this is wrong - saved_acl2.core is a binary core file (platform dependent I believe) used by LISP. acl2-books.i386: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib I believe the .fasl files are also binary and platform dependent. acl2-books.i386: W: no-documentation acl2-books-certs.noarch: W: no-documentation acl2-books-source.noarch: W: no-documentation acl2-emacs-el.noarch: W: no-documentation acl2-xemacs-el.noarch: W: no-documentation True, but not important IMO (acl2-doc has documentation). acl2-doc.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/doc/acl2-3.5/HTML 0775 A standard directory should have permission set to 0755. If you get this message, it means that you have wrong directory permissions in some dirs included in your package. This actually appears to be wrong, though I thought this was actually corrected... (rebuilding now) This package has built in Koji for F11: x86: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1406611 x86_64: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1406769 and I am rebuilding it now for F12 (builds unfortunately take a long time). Issues that I see: 1) Elisp compilation as above (the compiled elisp packages currently don't work, but downloading the elisp source packages still allows one to use the supplementary LISP). 2) This package includes a LISP core. This core is specific to a given version and implementation of LISP (eg: if built with F10, it would be SBCL v1.0.22 as of now). Is there a good way of dealing with this? (Should I have Fedora version-dependent conditionals that BuildRequire and Require certain versions of LISP?) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review