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@xxxxxxxxxx 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/i386/lynx-2.8.6-2.src.rpm/result/rpmlint.log 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review