[Bug 769958] Review Request: eqp - Automated theorem prover for first-order equational logic

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769958

Mario Blättermann <mario.blaettermann@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mario.blaettermann@xxxxxxxx
                   |                            |m

--- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann <mario.blaettermann@xxxxxxxxx> ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4567138

$ rpmlint -i -v *
eqp.src: I: checking
eqp.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) prover -> prove, rover, proverb
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

eqp.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) equational -> equalization, equation,
equitation
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

eqp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US equational -> equalization,
equation, equitation
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

eqp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US prover -> prove, rover,
proverb
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

eqp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usr -> use, us, user
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

eqp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US robbins -> ribbons, Robbins,
robins
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

eqp.src: I: checking-url http://www.cs.unm.edu/~mccune/eqp/ (timeout 10
seconds)
eqp.src: I: checking-url http://www.cs.unm.edu/~mccune/old-ftp/eqp-09e.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
eqp.i686: I: checking
eqp.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) prover -> prove, rover, proverb
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

eqp.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) equational -> equalization,
equation, equitation
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

eqp.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US equational -> equalization,
equation, equitation
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

eqp.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US prover -> prove, rover,
proverb
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

eqp.i686: I: checking-url http://www.cs.unm.edu/~mccune/eqp/ (timeout 10
seconds)
eqp.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary eqp
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

eqp.x86_64: I: checking
eqp.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) prover -> prove, rover, proverb
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

eqp.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) equational -> equalization,
equation, equitation
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

eqp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US equational -> equalization,
equation, equitation
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

eqp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US prover -> prove, rover,
proverb
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

eqp.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.cs.unm.edu/~mccune/eqp/ (timeout 10
seconds)
eqp.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary eqp
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

eqp-debuginfo.i686: I: checking
eqp-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://www.cs.unm.edu/~mccune/eqp/ (timeout
10 seconds)
eqp-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
eqp-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.cs.unm.edu/~mccune/eqp/
(timeout 10 seconds)
eqp.spec: I: checking-url http://www.cs.unm.edu/~mccune/old-ftp/eqp-09e.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 16 warnings.

No recognizable issues from rpmlint.

Still one objection: The %defattr line is obsolete, even for EPEL 5. Please
remove.


However, under normal circumstances I would assign this review request to me
and do a full review. But what's the current state of the licensing issue? Is
it safe now to accept the current license declaration as is, or does it need
some further action?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]