[Bug 226113] Merge Review: lynx

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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 at redhat.com  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.