Bug 490152
| Summary: | Review Request: links - lightweight www browser with x11 interface | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jan F. Chadima <jchadima> | ||||
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Matěj Cepl <mcepl> | ||||
| Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | medium | ||||||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, kasal, mcepl, notting, ovasik | ||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||
| Hardware: | All | ||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
| Last Closed: | 2009-03-14 07:32:00 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
| Embargoed: | |||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Jan F. Chadima
2009-03-13 15:30:14 UTC
The above links are broken, the following use either: http://www.benhur.prf.cuni.cz/medved-7/wydobitki/fedora/links.spec and http://www.benhur.prf.cuni.cz/medved-7/wydobitki/fedora/links-2.2-1.fc11.i386.rpm or: http://www.benhur.prf.cuni.cz/medved-7/wydobitki/?path=fedora/ A quick note: your description here seems to be much better than the one in the spec file, for severalk reasons: The %description in spec file contains details about portability, which is not relevant for Fedora users; they are using the built binary, on Linux, with X11 for graphics, etc. These details belong to the README file copied to %doc (where they probably already are). OTOH, the %description does not mention Javascipt support. And a two line description is always better than 16 line one. ;-) Isn't this a duplicate of bug 470703? I didn't build the package, but will this avoid conflicting with the existing /usr/bin/links? The other package calls it links2, I believe. First of all ... we need .src.rpm here, I don't care about binary rpm at all. Moreover http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~clock/twibright/links/download/links-2.2.tar.bz2 doesn't download. The correct URL of the source tarball seems to be http://links.twibright.com/download/links-2.2.tar.bz2 Will try with that when I get home. Don't fix it now, we will do it when more stuff is tested. Created attachment 335120 [details]
modified spec file
OK, as the bug stands it is unbuildable -- I don't have links-2.2-configure.patch file.
Please address the question of duplication of bug 470703 before reviewing this. (In reply to comment #5) > Please address the question of duplication of bug 470703 before reviewing this. Yes, I know about the issue ... our current provider of /usr/bin/links is elinks (http://elinks.or.cz/) and it is a fork of this project, which later evolved into more featured browser (with Javascript, X11 support, etc.). I would suggest, that for now, this package would generate /usr/bin/links2, and we should also file a bug against elinks to rename its binary to /usr/bin/elinks. Then these two packages could Conflict each other and using update-alternates share /usr/bin/links symlink. For now, putting the maintainer of elinks on CC list of this bug. I was referring to the fact that someone has already submitted a links package, in bug 470703. That one should be reviewed, and this one should be closed->duplicate. Uh oh. Closing as DUPLICATE. Honzo, if you want, you can help on the other bug (if they need a help). *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 470703 *** |