[Bug 451996] Review Request: prover9 - Thereom Prover and Countermodel Generator

[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: prover9 - Thereom Prover and Countermodel Generator


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451996


mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp




------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp  2008-06-29 14:01 EST -------
Some random comments on 200805a-1:

* About prover9-libtoolise.patch
  - This patch seems to be for providing shared library named libladr.so.4.
    However if the original tarball does not provide any shared library
    by default, this way is dangerous because we cannot guess with what
    soversion the upstream developer comes to provide shared library in
    the future. At this stage the number "4:0:0" can be chosen arbitrarily
    without any ground.
    See also the explanation by Patrice Dumas:
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PatriceDumas

    So if this package only provides static archives by default, please
    follow
    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
    of "static libraries only".

* Compilation flags
  - This package completely ignores Fedora specific compilation flags:
    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags
    You can check what flags must be passed by
    $ rpm --eval %optflags

    This also reads to creating non-useful debuginfo rpm.

* Timestamps
  - When using %__install or %__cp commands, add "-p" option to keep timestamps
    on installed files.

* Unneeded ldconfig call
  - This -devel package does not need to call /sbin/ldconfig on scriptlets.

* Too generic names
  - Again filenames like "attack" or "renamer", "rewriter", etc... are
    too generic for files to be installed under %_bindir.
    Also it may be that the names "isofilter?" are also dangerous, as
    my system already has "iso-info" or "isoinfo" (!!!!) or "isosize" or
    so. Would you rename these binaries to "prover9-???" or move these
    under %_libdir/%name , for example?


-- 
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.