[Bug 548607] Review Request: pvs-sbcl - SRI's Prototype Verification System

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=548607


David A. Wheeler <dwheeler at dwheeler.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |dwheeler at dwheeler.com




--- Comment #1 from David A. Wheeler <dwheeler at dwheeler.com>  2009-12-17 18:39:58 EDT ---
Thanks for doing this!  I did a quick scan of the spec file to start with, and
have a few questions based on just that scan:
* I think the release number should be changed.  It's currently
"1.svn20091008%{?dist}", but I don't think that will sort correctly with later
items.  As I interpret
"https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#PreReleasePackages",
it should be something like "1.20091008svn%{?dist}".  I understand why you had
to pull from svn, and agree with that decision, but I'm not sure that will sort
well later.
* In the Summary, I'd add "(PVS)" at the end, to simply the job of keyword
searchers.  The expanded name of PVS is more historical than reality... I think
it's always referred to by its initials, not its full name.
* Patch0: I think it's okay for now, but in the long term, it might be nice for
there to be a build option that skips mona and uses the existing packaging
system.  That way it'll be easier to package for other distros, *and* it may
reduce your longer-term pain as PVS changes.  I'd at least send the patch to
the developers, explaining why it's needed.

I'm surprised at the number of "cannot be built" documents due to missing
components; did you ask SRI for them?  At the least, I suspect Rushby wouldn't
mind releasing his "/homes/rushby/tex/prelude" as OSS, or at least enough to
build one of the docs.  I don't see a license issue with the spec the way it
is, so I don't think that should hold up anything, but it'd be nice for the
future.

I fear the amount of time it took to create *this* spec.  This is definitely
not a program that was designed to be packaged.  Eek.

-- 
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.