As one of "others working on this", and having talked to David today,
I can assure you that this doesn't particularly change our plans one
way or another - you will continue to see more formal methods tools.
(Actually, I have a related package waiting for a CVS request, and
likely another automated theorem prover will be ready for review this
weekend or soon after.)
- Alan
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Karsten Hopp <karsten(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Richard W.M. Jones schrieb:
>
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 08:29:12PM -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
>>
>> * FESCo voted against making the Prover(1) a feature, since they felt it
>> didn't meet the criteria(2) of being a new feature. Note: This isn't to
>> say that this isn't a good thing, but they felt the target audience was
>> fairly limited.
>> 1.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Provers
>> 2.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy/Definitions
>
> It's very disappointing that this isn't considered a feature, largely
> (so it seems from the IRC log) because the target audience is
> considered "very limited".
>
> Although provers are used only by a few experts to check that software
> is correct, the benefits of using formally checked software
> (functions, data structures, libraries, etc.) accrue to all users of
> that software.
>
> I hope that David & others working on this don't get discouraged and
> this work continues, perhaps as a Fedora SIG.
>
> Rich.
>
+1, please don't get discouraged when FESCo rejects a feature proposal.
Rejecting something as a feature doesn't mean that the package isn't
accepted
into fedora. It just means that it doesn't met the requirements described in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy/Definitions#Features.
Karsten
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list