Bug 516849

Summary: Review Request: espresso-ab - A boolean minimization tool
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Shakthi Kannan <shakthimaan>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Chitlesh GOORAH <chitlesh>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 10CC: fedora-package-review, notting
Target Milestone: ---Flags: chitlesh: fedora-review+
dennis: fedora-cvs+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: 1.0-1.el5 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-08-15 21:41:37 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Shakthi Kannan 2009-08-11 16:30:04 UTC
Spec URL: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/espresso-ab.spec
SRPM URL: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/espresso-ab-1.0-1.fc11.src.rpm
Description: Espresso takes as input a two-level representation of a two-valued 
(or multiple-valued) Boolean function, and produces a minimal equivalent 
representation. It is a boolean logic minimization tool.

Comment 2 Chitlesh GOORAH 2009-08-11 16:40:24 UTC
no need for sponsorship as you have already been sponsored by me.

Comment 3 Chitlesh GOORAH 2009-08-11 17:22:24 UTC
- 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 (New BSD) 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 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 i386.
- MUST: All build dependencies is listed in BuildRequires.
- MUST: The spec file handles locales properly.
- MUST: If the package does not contain shared library files located in the
dynamic linker's default paths
- MUST: the package is not designed to be relocatable
- MUST: the package owns all directories that it creates.
- MUST: the package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
- 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 does include license text(s) as COPYING
 - SHOULD: mock builds succcessfully in i386.
 - SHOULD: The reviewer tested that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
 - SHOULD: No scriptlets were used, those scriptlets must be sane. 
 - SHOULD: No subpackages present.

APPROVED  


Don't forget to
- request CVS branches for fedora
- once CVS branches are granted, build and push espresso-ad directly to stable repositories

Comment 4 Shakthi Kannan 2009-08-11 17:30:57 UTC
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: espresso-ab
Short Description: A boolean minimization tool  
Owners: shakthimaan chitlesh
Branches: F-10 F-11

Comment 5 Kevin Fenzi 2009-08-12 23:59:50 UTC
cvs done.

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2009-08-15 05:03:21 UTC
espresso-ab-1.0-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/espresso-ab-1.0-1.fc11

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2009-08-15 05:03:26 UTC
espresso-ab-1.0-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/espresso-ab-1.0-1.fc10

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2009-08-15 21:41:33 UTC
espresso-ab-1.0-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2009-08-15 21:46:20 UTC
espresso-ab-1.0-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 10 Shakthi Kannan 2009-08-21 14:11:54 UTC
Package Change Request
=======================
Package Name: espresso-ab
Short Description: A boolean minimization tool  
Owners: shakthimaan chitlesh
New Branches: EL-5

[Successful espresso-ab build for dist-5E-epel http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1621387]

Comment 11 Dennis Gilmore 2009-08-21 18:31:47 UTC
CVS Done

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2009-08-22 14:54:58 UTC
espresso-ab-1.0-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/espresso-ab-1.0-1.el5

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2009-09-10 22:55:20 UTC
espresso-ab-1.0-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.