[Bug 564520] Review Request: frama-c - Framework for source code analysis of C software

[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=564520

--- Comment #13 from Alan Dunn <amdunn at gmail.com> 2010-02-21 23:53:38 EST ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> 
> The basic question is how to convert the version name "Beryllium 2" into
> something reasonable.  Sorry to have such a long conversation about
> version/release id's, but upstream's version naming convention is hideous and
> it's not directly covered by the Fedora guidelines.  Anyway, I looked at this
> for some guidance:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Package_Version
> 
> Since Beryllium has atomic number 4, this is subrelease 2 of the Beryllium
> version, and we should prefix with "0." (see comment #5 and comment #6), then I
> think we should have:
>  Version: 0.4.2
> 
> We could have a perfectly reasonable 'release' value like this, since 0.4.2
> would uniquely map to Beryllium 2:
>  Release: 1%{?dist}
> Having a simple 'release' value has its own virtues, and that'd be quite
> reasonable.
> 
> However, what I was thinking was that many people might not understand that
> version "0.4.2" was the same thing as "Beryllium 2" (unless they look up our
> translation gimmick).   The "Release" value is where nonnumeric version id's
> hide, so I was thinking that we might use the Release field to provide that
> info to users.  E.G., perhaps something like this for Beryllium 2:
>  Release: 1.beryllium.2%{?dist}
> 
> Then the initial release number would be incremented for each new package
> release of Beryllium 2.
> 
> Does that sound reasonable?  Comments, anyone?    

Sounds fine to me. I've gone some of the distance toward making the revisions
you wanted. New SRPM at

https://www.openproofs.org/packages/frama-c/frama-c-0.4.2-1.Beryllium.2.fc12.src.rpm

(spec file location is the same)

Changes made:
- Now has a doc subpackage, desktop file
- Version name changed
- cp timestamps modification
- Added short tests/long tests option (short tests is default unless "with
lengthy_tests")
- Patch rename and justification as above
- Builds in Koji (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2004214)
thanks to fixed BuildRequires

Still to do:
- Talk to Medhi Dogguy about functionality of some of the patches
- Get word from Fedora Legal
- SELinux issues
- Repackage -devel subpackage (exact contents necessary still unknown...)
- SMP flags

-- 
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.