Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zfuzz - Z fuzz - Type-checker and LaTeX style for Z spec language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452559 ------- Additional Comments From dwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-06-27 15:13 EST ------- Here's a new version of the package, which I believe resolves all issues raised above: http://www.dwheeler.com/tex-zfuzz-7.09-7.fc9.src.rpm http://www.dwheeler.com/tex-zfuzz.spec rpmlint is clean on specs, SRPMs, and binary RPMs. koji builds on all dist-f9 architectures without error. Here are my responses to comment 16: >* it is not needed to put the name in the summary, I mean you can remove > 'Z fuzz -' from the Summary. Ok, done. >* Regarding the patch file names, I have a recommendation you can ignore, > I use name like zfuzz-20070911-read-decl.patch > to know in which version the patch was added. Sounds reasonable! Done. I know you said I could ignore it, but I did it anyway :-). >* regarding the version, if the versioning scheme was changed and the > version became less recent that the latest date (the ordering is the > ascii ordering), then you'll have to use an epoch. Not the end of the > world but prone to easy errors when forgetting to specify the epoch > in a version-release string. Yes, I know about epoch and its problems. But I don't like the idea of creating an arbitrary "1.0"; it doesn't convey any information, and if it were completely arbitrary and disconnected from upstream, other distributions might use a different version numbering system... leading to confusion. So here's my proposal: version numbering is of the form "(yyyy-2000).mm[dd]". Since this was released on 2007-09-11, this is version "7.09". Thus we have a normal-looking version number, yet one that easily syncs with upstream. Ubuntu uses this format, so it's not unknown in the world. >* regarding the name, having tex-zfuzz as a name really means that the > name of the upstream software is zfuzz, but that it is a tex package. > The fact that it is a tex package does not means that it is in a tex > distribution... Ah, okay. Package renamed to "tex-zfuzz". > For the sponsoring, could you please point me to other works you've > done in fedora? * I created and wrote the majority of the content of: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CreatingPackageHowTo * I'm the upstream developer for two Fedora packages, sloccount and flawfinder I've done a lot of stuff related to Free-Libre / open source software that isn't Fedora-specific: * http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html "Why OSS/FS? Look at the Numbers!" had a major impact years ago. This was the first paper to show, through _quantitative_ studies, that FLOSS was worth considering. Basically, it's a survey of many different quantitative studies, and when it came out there was nothing like it. * http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/high-assurance-floss.html is a survey of FLOSS tools that can help high assurance * http://www.dwheeler.com/ has lots more. * I'm well-known in OSS circles; you can see some of my presentations (http://www.dwheeler.com/presentations.html). * Worse comes to worse, ask Bruce Perens, Eric Raymond, or Michael Tiemann; they can vouch for me. Does that help? -- 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review