[Bug 516874] Review Request: eqntott - Generates truth tables from Boolean equations
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Aug 29 14:46:42 UTC 2009
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516874
Chitlesh GOORAH <chitlesh at gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Chitlesh GOORAH <chitlesh at gmail.com> 2009-08-29 10:46:40 EDT ---
- MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}
- MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package is licensed (GPLv2) with an open-source compatible license
and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- MUST: the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file,
then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is
included in %doc.
- MUST: the package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files
- MUST: the package owns all directories that it creates.
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
- MUST: The spec file for the package is be legible.
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
- MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least i586.
- MUST: All build dependencies is listed in BuildRequires.
- MUST: The spec file handles locales properly.: No locales in this package
- MUST: the package is not designed to be relocatable
- MUST: Permissions on files are set properly.
- MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package contains code, or permissible content. This is described in
detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: There are no Large documentation files
- MUST: %doc does not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If
it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present.
- MUST: There are no Header files or static libraries
- MUST: The package does not contain library files with a suffix
- MUST: Package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives
- MUST: Package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
SHOULD Items:
- SHOULD: The source package doesn't include license text(s) as COPYING
- SHOULD: mock builds succcessfully in i586.
- SHOULD: The reviewer tested that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
- SHOULD: Those scriptlets used are sane.
- SHOULD: No subpackages present.
Approved
---------
Tested
contents of file ex.eqn:
-------
F1 = !A|B|C;
F2 = !A&C;
F3 = A&B|!C;
-------
$ eqntott -l ex.eqn
.i 3
.o 3
.na ex
.ilb A B C
.ob F1 F2 F3
.p 6
0-- 1 0 0
--0 0 0 1
0-1 0 1 0
--1 1 0 0
-1- 1 0 0
11- 0 0 1
.e
-----------------------------------
Package eqntott 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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list