Bug 435661 (midori) - Review Request: midori - A lightweight GTK+ web browser
Summary: Review Request: midori - A lightweight GTK+ web browser
Alias: midori
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: David Nielsen
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2008-03-03 05:07 UTC by Peter Gordon
Modified: 2015-09-07 07:37 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2008-03-21 22:11:44 UTC
gnomeuser: fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Peter Gordon 2008-03-03 05:07:33 UTC
Spec URL: http://pgordon.fedorapeople.org/for-review/midori.spec
SRPM URL: http://pgordon.fedorapeople.org/for-review/midori-0.0.17-1.src.rpm

Description: %description
Midori is a lightweight web browser, and has many features expected of a
modern browser, including:
* Full integration with GTK+2.
* Fast rendering with WebKit.
* Tabs, windows and session management.
* Bookmarks are stored with XBEL.
* Searchbox based on OpenSearch.
* Custom context menu actions.
* User scripts and user styles support.
* Extensible via Lua scripts.

The project is currently in an early alpha state. The features are still being
implemented, and some are still quite incomplete.

Comment 1 Peter Gordon 2008-03-03 05:13:10 UTC
Assigning to David at his request via our Jabber conversation a couple of days ago.

Comment 2 David Nielsen 2008-03-03 10:14:02 UTC
=== GOOD ===
+ Package naming/version is OK. Spec file is appropriately named ("%{name}.spec").
+ License (LGPLv2+) is acceptable for Fedora and matches that of the code.
+ Final file and directory ownership is OK, with no duplicates and appropriate
%defattr lines.
+ BuildRoot is OK, and is properly removed as the first step in %install and as
the only step in %clean.
+ Final requires/provides are sane.
+ Summary and %description are good. The spec is legible and written in American
+ File encodings are OK.
+ Compiler flags are honored; and parallel make is used.
+ No static libraries or libtool archives present.
+ Binaries contain no RPATH kludges.
+ Macro usage is consistent.
+ Timestamps look OK.
+ Package does not seem to conflict with other Fedora stuff.
+ License is included in the package (COPYING).
+ Sources match those of upstream:
  58d1b7ed282540030eb1b5803b760865  ../SOURCES/midori-0.0.17.tar.gz
  58d1b7ed282540030eb1b5803b760865  ../COMPARE/midori-0.0.17.tar.gz
+ Package contains permissible code.
+ Documentation (%doc) does not affect runtime of the program.
+ All filenames are valid UTF-8 
+ Correct .desktop file handling 

=== BAD ===
Rpmlint complaints:
midori.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 14, tab: line 3)
(actually rpmlint is wrong you have spurious space use in lines: 14, 17, 18
twice, 20, 54 twice and 55)

midori-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm

Missing br for desktop-file-utils

=== N/A ==
* Scriplets are OK, including user/group creation in %pre and /sbin/ldconfig
invocations on %post/%postun for the installed shared libraries.
* Header files, pkgconfig data, and unversioned library symlinkes are in a
-devel subpackage as required. It has proper dependencies on the main package
and pkgconfig.
* Locale files handled appropriately (via %find_lang).
* Package is not relocatable.
* No large documentation; no -doc subpackage is necessary.

As an application midori isn't terribly stable, I can crash it in a minute or
so, but hey it's a beta.

Comment 3 Peter Gordon 2008-03-04 03:27:27 UTC
Thanks for the review, David. I've fixed up the issues you've noted and posted
new files for it.

Spec URL: http://pgordon.fedorapeople.org/for-review/midori.spec
SRPM URL: http://pgordon.fedorapeople.org/for-review/midori-0.0.17-2.src.rpm

Also, please remember to set the fedora-review flag to '?' while this is in
review, or '+'/'-' when it is accepted/rejected as applicable. =)

Comment 4 David Nielsen 2008-03-04 11:22:15 UTC
Excellent, since it now builds in mock and I have no further complaints, let's
call it APPROVED.

Comment 5 Peter Gordon 2008-03-05 01:17:44 UTC
Awesome. Thank you, good sir! :)

New Package CVS Request
Package Name: Midori
Short Description: A lightweight GTK+ web browser
Owners: pgordon
Branches: devel F-8 F-7
InitialCC: (none)
Cvsextras Commits: Yes

Comment 6 Peter Gordon 2008-03-07 09:21:17 UTC
Ugh...knew I forgot to do something. Setting the CVS flag per above. 

Comment 7 Kevin Fenzi 2008-03-07 17:52:20 UTC
Humm... there is a case issue here. 

Is the package called "Midori" or "midori"? 
Your specs use the lowercase, but the review name and your cvs request use upper

Comment 8 Peter Gordon 2008-03-07 17:56:20 UTC
It should be lowercase ("midori"). Sorry for the confusion, Kevin. :)

Comment 9 Kevin Fenzi 2008-03-07 18:03:40 UTC
No problem. 

cvs done.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2008-03-07 22:36:05 UTC
midori-0.0.17-2.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2008-03-07 22:36:49 UTC
midori-0.0.17-2.fc7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 7

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2008-03-13 07:40:30 UTC
midori-0.0.17-2.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update midori'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F7/FEDORA-2008-2384

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2008-03-21 22:11:42 UTC
midori-0.0.17-2.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2008-03-21 22:15:44 UTC
midori-0.0.17-2.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 15 Joachim Frieben 2008-12-18 12:35:30 UTC
midori-0.1.1 has been released as of 2008-12-01.

Comment 16 Mamoru TASAKA 2008-12-18 13:52:03 UTC
Please don't write such RFEs on already closed review
requests. Please open a new bug report against the right
component instead.

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