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

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Jul 9 04:10:56 UTC 2008


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 at dwheeler.com  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.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list