[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


amdunn@xxxxxxxxx changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From amdunn@xxxxxxxxx  2008-07-20 08:00 EST -------
The slightly more extensive official review:

- rpmlint silent (well, except as mentioned above, but that's still ok to me)
- naming proper
- licensing ok (and included in %doc)
- specfile legible, in American English
- sources match upstream:
d5440999c6f92d436a1d1e96d4ffbd56  zenon-0.5.0.tar.gz
- successful build (tested on i386)
- no architecture blocking (on Fedora 9 and devel but see below)
- dependencies in BuildRequires
- proper file and directory ownership
- proper file attributes and defattr
- rm -rf %{buildroot} run in %clean
- no large docs/docs not required for running
- rm -rf %{buildroot} run at beginning of %install
- filenames valid UTF-8

shoulds:
- license in separate file (miswritten above in what I said)
- (no translations available for docs, but could eventually be by the
  team for French if docs are submitted back upstream)
- package still builds in mock
- package compiles for all architectures (again, see below)
- program runs (example works)

It seems like the ppc64 issue is actually resolved in that from the
discussion at

https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/711

I gather that for Koji scratch builds one needs to define the fedora
macro manually, but for "make build" builds, the macro is defined
properly in a rebuilding of the SRPM.

(Though technically I would've done a 0%{fedora} < 9 since this won't
work for Fedora 7, but that's probably going to be ok.)

So you could submit this for Fedora 8, but I suppose then you should
include the proper bug report.

Looks like you fixed what I wanted re: examples.

So:
APPROVED.

-- 
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]