Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470703 --- Comment #24 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@xxxxx> 2009-04-03 05:42:48 EDT --- (In reply to comment #23) > Ok, just quick check first... If I understand correctly, you're planning to do a more detailed review later, right? In that case, I'll wait with updating the package until then. > 1) > #Issue: > # There is a symlink in /usr/bin/links to elinks if that package is installed > # Should this package use links2 or should I modify elinks to remove the links > # symlink from elinks > - this comment in spec should be removed as elinks/links2 now uses > alternatives. Will remove. > 2) > Many warnings "pointer targets in passing argument <N> of <variable> differ in > signedness" in build.log still ... upstream should address those... maybe just > adding Mikulas to that review could be ok. Mikulas? Which one? An upstream developer? > The rest of the spec file looks sane to me (except one trailing space in build > section - line with mv converted.AUTHORS ). Will fix. > Question: Shouldn't be that NSS support enabled via configure option (like in > elinks?). This should be easier to get into upstream ... It should. In fact, I have little motivation to fix configure scripts gotten obviously wrong -- see use of random include directories in openssl detection routine below. So my plan is to throw this upstream and rewrite it (and the openssl detection) only once they complain. I don't really care about user choosing between NSS and OpenSSL. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review