[Bug 225725] New: Merge Review: elinks

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225725

Summary: Merge Review: elinks
           Product: Fedora Extras
           Version: devel
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: normal
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]
         QAContact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]

Fedora Merge Review: elinks

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/elinks/
Initial Owner: [e-mail]

[Bug 225725] Merge Review: elinks

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: elinks

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225725

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |medium
           Priority|normal                      |medium
            Product|Fedora Extras               |Fedora

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-07-21 11:03 EST -------
---------
Summary:
---------
* License file in tarball but not in %doc
* Duplicate BuildRequires: autoconf (by automake), krb5-devel (by
openssl-devel), pkgconfig (by libidn-devel)

---------
Details:
---------

OK - Mock : Built on rawhide (x86)
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License is GPL
OK - License match packaging policy licenses allowed
FIX - License file is included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources SHOULD match upstream md5sum:
a0eb50e18a2ac8e77d6b0df8f94bb5a6  elinks-0.11.3.tar.bz2
OK - Package has correct buildroot.
FIX - BuildRequires are not redundant.
OK - %build and %install stages are correct and work.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - No large doc files not in a -doc package
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories that other packages own.
OK - Changelog section is correct.

OK - Should function as described.
OK - Should package latest version

---------------
Rpmlint output:
---------------
OK - silent on both srpm and main/sub package rpm

Silent on elinks and debuginfo

Source RPM:
W: elinks unversioned-explicit-provides webclient
W: elinks unversioned-explicit-obsoletes links
W: elinks unversioned-explicit-provides links

[Bug 225725] Merge Review: elinks

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: elinks

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225725

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-cvs?

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-07-27 04:49 EST -------
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: elinks
Updated Fedora Owners: [e-mail]

[Bug 225725] Merge Review: elinks

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: elinks

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225725

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-cvs?                 |fedora-cvs+

[Bug 225725] Merge Review: elinks

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: elinks

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225725

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Version|devel                       |rawhide

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |RAWHIDE
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2008-01-15 09:21 EST -------
I accidently did the review on F8 not devel.  The issues noted above are not in
devel branch.

APPROVED

[Bug 225725] Merge Review: elinks

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225725

Patrice Dumas  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |Reopened
             Status|CLOSED                      |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
         Resolution|RAWHIDE                     |

--- Comment #4 from Patrice Dumas   2008-11-11 09:17:22 EDT ---
As far as I can tell, the unversionned obsoletes and provides are still there.
They are gonna cause much trouble to bug 470703.

Please fix that, and fix it also in F8 and F9 and issue updates.

[Bug 225725] Merge Review: elinks

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225725

--- Comment #5 from Patrice Dumas   2008-11-11 09:23:21 EDT ---
Another issue is that the symbolic link to links is dubious at best. It will
also cause problem for bug 470703. What is your opinion on that? Why was it
done in the first place?

[Bug 225725] Merge Review: elinks

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225725

--- Comment #6 from John F   2008-11-11 17:41:20 EDT ---
Created an attachment (id=323269)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=323269)
Fixes to the elinks.spec file to have it work with the 'links' package

Full spec file and srpm here:
http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~jhford/fedora/elinks.spec
http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~jhford/fedora/elinks-0.12-0.7.pre2.fc10.src.rpm

[Bug 225725] Merge Review: elinks

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225725

--- Comment #7 from Patrice Dumas   2008-11-11 19:01:51 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Created an attachment (id=323269)

--> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=323269) [details]
> Fixes to the elinks.spec file to have it work with the 'links' package
>
> Full spec file and srpm here:
> http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~jhford/fedora/elinks.spec
> http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~jhford/fedora/elinks-0.12-0.7.pre2.fc10.src.rpm

It would have been better to keep the obsoletes, but version them by
using the links version number that was used when it was obsoleted.

[Bug 225725] Merge Review: elinks

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225725

John F  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #8 from John F   2008-11-12 00:35:35 EDT ---
The last upstream update to the old version of links 1 was made in 2003 and I
looked as far back as I could in Fedora and it is exclusively elinks since at
least Fedora core 5.  I could redo the patch with the versioned obsolete there,
but I doubt that would have any real effect since as best as I can tell, there
never has been an actual 'links' package in Fedora.

[Bug 225725] Merge Review: elinks

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225725

Ondrej Vasik  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #9 from Ondrej Vasik   2008-11-13 03:15:43 EDT ---
There was no links package in Fedora - last links package was 0.96 in RHEL2.1
and RHL7.3. Anyway, I'm not sure about dropping links symlinks as they are
frequently used by elinks users for just running elinks. Versioned obsoletes
are reasonable, I would suggest usage of different binary name in links package
e.g. links2, links-g ... This is IMHO more safe solution... No patch for spec
file is needed, we just have to discuss details what should be changed in
elinks.

[Bug 225725] Merge Review: elinks

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225725

--- Comment #10 from Ondrej Vasik   2008-11-13 03:28:49 EDT ---
About the symlinks and their purpose at the beginning - I'm not sure, I guess
it was because of keeping backward compatibility with some text-mode scripts as
links package will probably bring requirements for X/framebuffer which could
not be acceptable in some cases.
Versioned obsoletes will be fixed without doubts.

[Bug 225725] Merge Review: elinks

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225725

--- Comment #11 from Robert Scheck   2009-01-13 17:25:34 EDT ---
Tyler, Ondrej - ping?

[Bug 225725] Merge Review: elinks

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225725

--- Comment #12 from Ondrej Vasik   2009-01-14 06:22:27 EDT ---
I guess Tyler approved that package before, so no reason to ping him. Patrice
afaik withdrawn from Fedora process ~1 month ago, I fixed versioned obsoletes
in rawhide now, but I'm reluctant to remove links symlinks for links v2
package. Links v.2 (with graphics) brings framebuffer/X-Windows requirement. It
is common in other linux distributions to have its binary named links2 and to
ship links version 0.X or 1.X separately (RedHat shipped links v.0.X until
0.96, then replaced by elinks). I'm ok with removing those symlinks if the
links v.1.X package will be added to Fedora - not for links v.2+. So the only
question is if John is ok with it - then we could close that merge review
again.

[Bug 225725] Merge Review: elinks

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225725

--- Comment #13 from Patrice Dumas   2009-01-14 08:55:35 EDT ---
I withdrawn from Fedora, but I can still make evil comments ;-).

The versionned Obsoletes doesn't looks good to me. The Obsolete version
should be the old links version, not the elinks version.

So could be along

Obsoletes: links < 1:0.97
Provides: links <= 1:0.97-1

though I didn't found a full list of old links rpm in RHEL or fedora this seems
to be fine, since as you said above 0.96 was the latest packages and upstream
is already at 0.99 or 1.00pre.

Otherwise, I am fine with keeping the symlink as long as links is not brought
back in fedora. Once it is in, maybe using alternatives would be better.

And I am also fine with using links2 for the links 2 package.

[Bug 225725] Merge Review: elinks

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225725

--- Comment #14 from Ondrej Vasik   2009-01-14 10:06:53 EDT ---
Ok, you are right, I thought about that possibility as well... will change the
versioned obsoletes to that better style in next release... thanks for "evil
comment" :).

[Bug 225725] Merge Review: elinks

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225725

Ondrej Vasik  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |needinfo?(tyler.l.owen@gmai
                   |                            |l.com)

--- Comment #15 from Ondrej Vasik   2009-07-18 14:18:34 EDT ---
Obsoletes should be fine now and links is now handled via alternatives. Maybe
we should close that review again. What do you think?

[Bug 225725] Merge Review: elinks

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225725

Tyler Owen  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |CURRENTRELEASE
               Flag|needinfo?(tyler.l.owen@gmai |
                   |l.com)                      |