Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: lynx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226113
------- Additional Comments From rnorwood(a)redhat.com 2007-02-03 15:44 EST -------
I used the checklist from
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/JasonTibbitts/ReviewTemplate to look
over this package. Someone with more experience should give it a
review as well, though.
rpmlint output from:
http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/mock-results-core/i38...
rpmlint on ./lynx-debuginfo-2.8.6-2.i386.rpm
rpmlint on ./lynx-2.8.6-2.src.rpm
W: lynx summary-ended-with-dot A text-based Web browser.
W: lynx unversioned-explicit-provides webclient
rpmlint on ./lynx-2.8.6-2.i386.rpm
W: lynx summary-ended-with-dot A text-based Web browser.
W: lynx conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/lynx.cfg
W: lynx conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/lynx.lss
W: lynx doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/lynx-2.8.6/samples/keepviewer /bin/sh
W: lynx doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/lynx-2.8.6/samples/lynxdump /bin/sh
W: lynx doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/lynx-2.8.6/samples/oldlynx /bin/sh
o The unversioned-explicit-provides webclient issue seems to be standard
procedure for web browser packages. firefox, for instance, has the same
provides, and gets the same warning from rpmlint
o The lack of a noreplace flag on /etc/lynx.cfg is apparently intentional - see
the first few lines of that file.
o /etc/lynx.lss probably should be flagged as %noreplace
o Those doc files are apparently intended to be executable, since they are
sample scripts.
o source files match upstream:
$ sha256sum lynx2.8.6.tar.bz2
41dfc33fcc23295810c3141c614427cca7882ab4e0774e58f6aa9bac9c2586f9 lynx2.8.6.tar.bz2
$ sha256sum lynx2.8.6rel.2.tar.bz2
41dfc33fcc23295810c3141c614427cca7882ab4e0774e58f6aa9bac9c2586f9
lynx2.8.6rel.2.tar.bz2
However, the URL for Source in the spec file is incorrect. The
correct URL for the current version is:
http://lynx.isc.org/current/lynx2.8.6rel.2.tar.bz2
o package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
Looks fine to me.
o specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
Looks fine to me.
o dist tag is present.
Nope. Needs to be added
o build root is correct.
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
Nope.
o license field matches the actual license.
Yes.
o license is open source-compatible.
Yes - GPL V2 in the COPYING file.
o latest version is being packaged.
Almost - there is a 2.8.6rel.4 available from upstream now.
o BuildRequires are proper.
Look fine to me.
o compiler flags are appropriate.
There's some magic in %build - looks like it is for getting the flags
right on openssl and Ncurses/mouse support. Someone (other than me)
should take a look at this.
o %clean is present.
Looks fine.
o package builds in mock ( ).
Yes.
o package installs properly
Yes.
o debuginfo package looks complete.
I'm not sure.
o rpmlint is silent.
See the warnings at the top ^
o final provides and requires are sane:
Yes.
o %check is present and all tests pass:
No.
o no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
Looks ok to me.
o owns the directories it creates.
Ok.
o doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
Ok.
o no duplicates in %files.
Ok.
o file permissions are appropriate.
Yes, except might want to chmod -x the sample scripts that are located
in /usr/share/doc/lynx-2.8.6/samples/ (rpmlint complains about them)
o no scriptlets present.
Ok.
o code, not content.
Ok.
o documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
Ok.
o %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
Ok.
o no headers.
Ok.
o no pkgconfig files.
Ok.
o no libtool .la droppings.
Ok.
o not a GUI app.
Well, no, it isn't. :-)
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.