Bug 226113 - Merge Review: lynx
Merge Review: lynx
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Fedora Package Reviews List
: Reopened
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-01-31 14:36 EST by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:11 EST (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-09-04 10:27:28 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
robin.norwood: fedora‑review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 14:36:05 EST
Fedora Merge Review: lynx

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/lynx/
Initial Owner: varekova@redhat.com
Comment 1 Robin Norwood 2007-02-03 15:44:17 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. :-)
Comment 2 Ivana Varekova 2007-02-23 07:43:46 EST
Thanks for your comments. The fixed package is lynx-2.8.6-3.fc7.

o /etc/lynx.lss probably should be flagged as %noreplace
-> fixed

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
-> lynx2.8.6rel.2.tar.bz2 - is not stable version

o dist tag is present.

Nope.  Needs to be added
-> added

o build root is correct.
      %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
-> fixed

o latest version is being packaged.

Almost - there is a 2.8.6rel.4 available from upstream now.
-> it is not stable version lynx 2.8.6 is te last stable version

o %check is present and all tests pass:

No.
->There are no tests in lynx package

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)
-> I think this files should be leaved as executable.

Comment 3 Robert Scheck 2007-02-23 08:06:11 EST
Nope, files in %doc can't be executable.
Comment 4 Ivana Varekova 2007-02-23 08:44:32 EST
Please could you sent me some link to the documentation which supports your opinion?
Comment 5 Robert Scheck 2007-03-13 11:27:14 EDT
Sorry Ivana, I was wrong. Jesse (Keating) told me, that it's possible to ship 
files with +x, when no new dependencies are introduced by these files.
Comment 6 Ivana Varekova 2007-03-14 07:58:09 EDT
No problem. Thanks for your time.
Could you please set fedora-review flag to + if you agree the package fulfil all
requirements, or attach some comment with the list of problems which should be
fixed if you see some?
Thank you very much.
Comment 7 Ivana Varekova 2007-04-05 04:25:04 EDT
Robin,
could you please look at less and approved this review request or
if you see any reason why you wdon't want to aproved it here. 
Thanks
Comment 8 Robin Norwood 2007-04-05 12:35:55 EDT
Oh, sorry Ivana - everything looks fine now.
Comment 9 Ivana Varekova 2007-04-06 04:38:25 EDT
Thanks
Comment 10 Tyler Owen 2007-07-15 12:32:27 EDT
Can this ticket be closed now?  It appears approval was given and fedora-review
+ is assigned.
Comment 11 Robin Norwood 2007-07-16 10:52:46 EDT
I'm confused about this part of the package review process as well.  According to:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageReviewProcess

"5. Once a package is flagged as fedora-review + (or -), the Reviewer's job is
done. "
Comment 12 Ivana Varekova 2007-09-04 10:27:28 EDT
The approval was granted so I'm closing this bug.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.