[Bug 453503] Review Request:zenon - Automated theorem prover for first-order classical logic

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

 



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:zenon - Automated theorem prover for first-order classical logic


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453503





------- Additional Comments From amdunn@xxxxxxxxx  2008-07-08 23:45 EST -------
This seems to meet all of the review criteria (though perhaps this should be
made even more extensive):

- Content permissible
- Name is proper
- No large documentation, documentation not needed to run (though thanks to you
it has more than none)
- No file types that should be moved to -devel or -static
(- No gui program)
- Proper file ownership
- rm -rf %{buildroot} run
- All filenames valid UTF-8

should items:
- License included and matches type indicated
- Package contains test (the tptp test for the halting problem)

Furthermore:

Package indeed builds in mock. I also tested a common need for ocaml packages: I
moved ocamlopt, ocamlopt.opt and tried a build. This works (the tptp test runs)
and produces the (expectedly slower) bytecode verion. Rpmlint is silent on
source RPM and produced binary RPM for opt build i386, though it makes a weird
claim for the bytecode version:

zenon.i386: E: no-binary
The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain
any binaries.

This is not true from what I can tell, but probably indicated since the file
type of zenon is not ELF but the file command gives "zenon: a /usr/bin/ocamlrun
script text executable" (though it is a binary file, and I am under the
impression that this file is not architecture independent)

Koji builds for f9 as I see from

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=688986

for example, though perhaps should be attempted for f10.

Only one real recommendation I see at the moment, which is relatively minor: I
would move tptp-COM003+2.p out of %doc - it's not really a documentation file,
it's a data (non-binary) file that probably just belongs in %{_datadir}.

-- 
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

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