[Bug 484049] Review Request: emacs-common-proofgeneral - Emacs mode for standard interaction interface for proof assistants

[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=484049





--- Comment #3 from Alan Dunn <amdunn at gmail.com>  2009-04-06 15:43:02 EDT ---
Thank you for reviewing this. I've been so busy with other things I haven't
even had the time to search around for a reviewer and this has been sitting
here quite a while. I'll try to tackle these as soon as I possibly can - good
catch with the template error btw, guess that reveals that I've mainly used
Emacs before eh? (though, of course, I did test that the package works in
XEmacs)

(In reply to comment #2)
> MUST items:
> - rpmlint output:
> emacs-proofgeneral.noarch: W: no-documentation
> emacs-proofgeneral-el.noarch: W: no-documentation
> xemacs-proofgeneral.noarch: W: no-documentation
> xemacs-proofgeneral-el.noarch: W: no-documentation
> 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
> - package name
> - spec file name matches base package name
> X packaging guidelines: as noted in comment #1, we may have a problem with
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Bundling_of_multiple_projects.
>  Also note that some files in the top-level lib directory may violate this
> rule, too.
> - good license
> - license field matches actual license
> - include license file in %doc
> - spec file in American English
> - spec file legible
> - sources match upstream
> - builds on at least one primary arch
> - use ExcludeArch as necessary (N/A)
> - all build dependencies in BuildRequires
> - proper locale handling (N/A)
> - call ldconfig as necessary (N/A)
> - rationale if relocatable (N/A)
> - own all created directories
> - no duplicate %file listings
> - proper file permissions
> - %clean section
> - consistent use of macros
> - code or permissible content
> - large documentation files in a subpackage (N/A)
> - nothing in %doc needed at runtime
> - header files in -devel (N/A)
> - static libraries in -static (N/A)
> - require pkgconfig if necessary (N/A)
> - .so files in -devel (N/A)
> - -devel requires base package (N/A)
> - no libtool archives
> - desktop files for GUI apps: rationale given in the description above
> - don't own files or dirs created by other packages
> - clean at top of %install
> - filenames are UTF-8
> 
> SHOULD items:
> - query upstream for license file (N/A)
> - description and summary contain available translations (N/A)
> ? package builds in mock: not checked
> ? package builds on all suppported arches: not checked
> - package functions as described
> - sane scriptlets
> - subpackages require main package
> - pkgconfig files in -devel (N/A)
> - package dependencies instead of file dependencies
> 
> So we just need to investigate the use of bundled software and this package is
> good to go.  Thanks for submitting it!  This will make a great addition to the
> other prover-related software that has been pushed into Fedora recently.

-- 
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.