Re: [Savannah-hackers] savannah.gnu.org: submission of Atlazz (approved)

[Felix Rabe]

Loic Dachary wrote:
> Felix Rabe writes:
>  > I visited http://www.gnu.org/evaluation/evaluation.html
>
>         You don't really have to fill a form. The form you saw will be
> filled by GNU evaluators. However, if you do your best to fill it
> yourself, it will greatly help their job and accelerate the evaluation
> process.

Ok, here you are. :)  Please review it carefully, it could 
(unintentionally) contain inaccurate information.

http://xitnalta.com/gnuzz-0.0.3-pre2.tar.gz will be available in a few 
minutes.  (Since this is not a public release, it's not renamed.)
GNU Software Evaluation - GNU Gnuzz (alias Atlazz)
--------------------------------------------------

> These lines are written by Felix Rabe.

* General Information

** Package name and version

   > GNU Gnuzz, 0.0.2

** Author <Email>

   > Felix Rabe, <address@hidden>

** Should the authors(s) be contacted? (Y/N)

   > Yes.  (Registered through http://savannah.gnu.org/.)

** Was this package offered by the author to become a GNU program?
   (Y/N)

   > Yes.

** Requested by

   > Felix Rabe

** Message-ID

   > ?

** Evaluator

   > Felix Rabe (temporarily)

** Home page

   > None.  (Will be on www.gnu.org/software/...)

** Source

   > http://xitnalta.com/gnuzz-0.0.2.tar.gz

** Describe in your own words what job or jobs this program does.

   > I leave this to the actual evaluator, I've submitted the
   > description.  (Same as the gnuzz-0.0.2/DESCR file.)


* Package specifics

** Binaries available (Y/N)

   > No.

** GNU/Linux support? (Y/N)

   > Yes.  (Main development platform.)

** License:               (specify type - any problems?)

   > GNU General Public License.

** Dependencies:             (ok/problematic + notes)

   > Uses GNU software for development.  (GCC, glibc, auto*, ...)

   > GLib, http://www.gtk.org/
   >   GNU Lesser General Public License.
   >   No further dependencies (compiles and runs on GNU).

   > libxml2, http://xmlsoft.org/
   >   MIT License (= Expat license),
   >     expressed in http://xmlsoft.org/FAQ.html,
   >     refers to http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html
   >     which equals to http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt.
   >   No further dependencies (compiles and runs on GNU).

   > Will depend on (Gnuzz version > 0.0.2):

   > libao, http://www.vorbis.com/download_unix.psp
   >   GNU General Public License.
   >   No further dependencies (compiles and runs on GNU).

** Configuration:            
    GNU coding standards compliant?

   > Yes, using autoconf.  (No special tweaks.)

** Compilation:
    GNU coding standards compliant?

   > Yes, using automake.  (No special tweaks.)

** Usability/interface:      (ok/problematic + notes)
    This is a very important issue.

   > The core of Gnuzz is libgnuzz, a C library.  (These notes relate
   > to Gnuzz version 0.0.3, see
   > http://xitnalta.com/gnuzz-0.0.3-pre2.tar.gz.)

   > The library (libgnuzz) is not yet ready for general use, since
   > its interface is still under active development (and contains
   > ugly hacks).

   > The command line interface (programs 'gnuzz' and 'gnuzz-002') is
   > very restrictive (expects exactly one argument, a file name) and
   > NOT GNU compliant at the moment.  Usability is very bad at the
   > moment, since the XML file format requires a comfortable user
   > interface (ncurses, GUI, ...) to be easily dealt with.

   > Development is going on, improvements should come up with
   > subsequent releases.

** What languages is the program written in.

   > C.

** Code 

*** Clarity/maintenance: (ok/problematic + notes)
       Skim a few header files and a few source files.  Can you
       understand each part, at least in the large, from the comments
       there?.

    > I try to write clear comments.  Corrections appreciated.

*** Does it meet GNU Coding Standards?
       If not, please itemize the specific aspects that doesn't meet
       them.

    > I try to meet them.  Corrections appreciated.


** Performance:              (ok/problematic + notes)

   > Development focusses on having components that work.  No idea how
   > well or fast they do or could do their job currently.

   > No known bugs at the moment.  (Maybe due to limited testing.)

** Documentation:

*** Does the package include a good introduction or tutorial manual?

    > The only introductory document to Gnuzz is currently the README
    > file.  The Gnuzz Documentation (also covering libgnuzz and the
    > various upcoming user interfaces) is slowly taking shape.
    > (Though only experimental content at the moment, as I'm still
    > learning to write Texinfo.)

    > Introductions and tutorials (for using both Gnuzz and libgnuzz)
    > are planned inside the Gnuzz Documentation.

*** Does the package include a good reference manual?
        (The introduction or tutorial can be the reference manual as
        well, as long as it does both jobs well.  We think it is good
        to do both jobs with one manual.)

    > The Documentation has distinct sections for tutorial and
    > reference material.  As stated above, there is no reference at
    > the moment.  Work on the manual is taken seriously.

** Does the program recommend or encourage the use of any non-free
    software?

   > No.

** Does it have certain capabilities that can only be used in
    conjunction with some non-free software package?

   > No.  (Although, someone could legally create The Best GUI for
   > editing Gnuzz XML files and keep it non-free.)



* Evaluation summary 

** Does the program fit coherently within the GNU system?

   > No comment.

** Does the program meet necessary requirements for being a GNU
    package?

   > No idea, I'm not the GNU expert here.  (But I try to become one
   > ;).)

    If not, what changes can be feasibly implemented by the author in
    order for the program to be acceptable?

   > Everything is possible at the moment, Gnuzz is still very small.
   

** Are there any licensing issues that need to be resolved?

   > No.  Gnuzz (and libgnuzz) uses GNU GPL and the Gnuzz
   > Documentation uses GNU FDL.

** Is there a large overlap with some other GNU package?
    An overlap is when two programs have substantial functionality in
    common, but neither one entirely subsumes the other.  (Such
    overlap is undesirable.)

   > There are many free projects (like GNU Octal, Psycle (only Win32,
   > sf.net), ecasound) that build on similar concepts.  They
   > shouldn't overlap with Gnuzz, since DSP is only one of its
   > possible uses.  It could be possible for these other projects to
   > use libgnuzz as their core engine (or to reimplement them using
   > libgnuzz).

** Does the program have any gratuitous incompatibilities with other
    GNU packages?

    (For example, a program for searching files in a new way should
    support all the options of grep, except for those that don't make
    sense in this program, so as to attain maximum compatibility
    between the two programs.  For such a program, any grep option
    which would make sense but is not supported is a gratuitous
    incompatibility.)

   > Since there is no (real) user or library interface (which could
   > cause incompatibilities with existing projects or interfaces),
   > this issue will arise when these interfaces are implemented.


* Notes and comments during the evaluation process

  > I'm not the real evaluator.  I made this evaluation myself to help
  > the evaluation team to do its job faster.  I still hope that I
  > don't have to release Gnuzz 0.0.3 as Atlazz.