Brian Cameron wrote:
>
> I am submitting this case for Raptor 1.4.19 by Jerry Tan, and it will
> timeout on August 12th.  See attached onepager.
>
> Brian
<...excerpted from the attachment...>
>     4.5. Interfaces:
>        
>          Exported  Interface 
>
>     Interface                          Classification         Comments
>     -----------------------------     --------------  ----------------------
>     SUNWraptor                        Uncommitted     Package name
>     SUNWraptor-devel                  Uncommitted     Package name
>     /usr/bin/rapper                   Volatile        parser utility
>     /usr/bin/raptor-config            Volatile        config utility
>     /usr/lib/libraptor.so.1           Volatile        library
>     /usr/share/man/man1/rapper.1      Volatile        man page
>     /usr/share/man/man1/raptor-config.1 
>                                       Volatile        man page
>     /usr/share/man/man3/libraptor.3   Volatile        man page
>     /usr/lib/pkgconfig/raptor.pc      Volatile        pc file
>     /usr/include/raptor.h             Volatile        Header file
>     /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/raptor    Volatile        help file
I notice that most of the exported interfaces are "Volatile".  This 
seems low, especially since the upstream itself seems committed to 
stability (e.g. the notice regarding the ABI/API change on the front 
page).   Isn't "Uncommitted" more appropriate?

Also, is this *library* racing another FOSS product  -- i.e. will we see 
another consuming application show up soon?  I ask merely out of 
curiosity -- I believe we have a pattern of delivering (FOSS enabling) 
libraries in LSARC, whereas PSARC often challenges libraries without 
consumers.  And this seems like such a specialized library. . .

Also, another point of personal clarification -- I notice not all 
projects complete a FOSS checklist.  This one didn't seem to.  I suspect 
that's fine, except that in this particular case, I couldn't find a 
binding level.  I notice that's an explicit question in the FOSS 
checklist, but reviewing many recent one-pagers reveals that this detail 
is very often omitted.   What is the binding level here?

One final nit -- are we really interested in delivering raptor.pc?   
It's not really been common practice up until now to deliver those 
./configure artifacts.

Other than these nits, the case looks fine to me.

Reply via email to