[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 dwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxx  2008-07-09 00:10 EST -------
Thanks for the review! Regarding questions/recommendations:

* I think the rpmlint result for the bytecode-only-version should be ignored.
  The problem is that rpmlint lacks context.  rpmlint can't realize that you
  would normally run a machine code version, and that the only reason that
  there's a bytecode version is because nothing better is available for
  that particular architecture.
* "perhaps should be attempted for f10." Ok, good point. I built for f10 using:
   koji build --scratch dist-f10 ../SRPMS/zenon-0.5.0-1.fc9.src.rpm
   and got 5 clean builds (no failures).
* "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}."  Hmm, I'm not sure how to respond to that.
  The reason I put it in %doc was because I was thinking of this test case
  as an example. It enables a human to understand (through example) how to
  use the program.  It's _not_ used during run-time (normally), e.g., it's
  not an architecture-independent library or anything like that.
  And this program has squat for documentation, so even an example
  is more than it had otherwise :-).
  I'd prefer to leave it in %doc, primarily because there's so little
  documentation that I'd rather give them SOMETHING to start.
  But I'm not hard over it.  Anyone else have any thoughts?



-- 
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]