[Bug 452559] Review Request: zfuzz - Z fuzz - Type-checker and LaTeX style for Z spec language

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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 at dwheeler.com  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.