Spec URL: http://www.benhur.prf.cuni.cz/medved-7/wydobitki/?path=fedora/links.spec SRPM URL: http://www.benhur.prf.cuni.cz/medved-7/wydobitki/?path=fedora/links-2.2-1.fc11.i386.rpm Description: Links is lightweight www browser running in both text and graphic modes, supportng HTML 4.0 HTTP 1.1 Jawascript and much more.
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 ***