[Bug 470703] Review Request: links 2 - text mode browser with graphics

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470703


Matej Cepl <mcepl at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|needinfo?(mcepl at redhat.com) |




--- Comment #38 from Matej Cepl <mcepl at redhat.com>  2009-04-10 12:48:14 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #35)
> Matej: Though this is mostly a pre-nss-patch relic (current version of the nss
> patch would not look for OpenSSL once NSS compat library is present) I believe
> this is completely legitimate use of BuildConflicts.

No, it is not ... the fact that I have three versions of one library installed
on my computer doesn't mean that you have to one particular of them (and if you
want me to uninstall openssl, then please fix mysql, postifx, opal, nash, and
dovecot ;-)). Either select the right one (which is what you do in your patch
anyway), or add some ./configure option for it
(--with-crypto={openssl,nss,gnutls} or something of that kind).

And of course more important is that this line is there only to annoy people
who would actually want to build this package on their own computer ... it
doesn't make any sense for building in mock/koji, and it is totally unnecessary
-- when I remove it and rebuild package, resulting package doesn't require
openssl anyway:

[matej at viklef redhat]$ rpm -qR links
/bin/sh  
/bin/sh  
/bin/sh  
/usr/sbin/alternatives  
/usr/sbin/alternatives  
/usr/sbin/alternatives  
libX11.so.6()(64bit)  
libbz2.so.1()(64bit)  
libc.so.6()(64bit)  
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)  
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit)  
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)  
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)  
libdl.so.2()(64bit)  
libgpm.so.2()(64bit)  
libjpeg.so.62()(64bit)  
libm.so.6()(64bit)  
libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)  
libnss_compat_ossl.so.0()(64bit)  
libpng12.so.0()(64bit)  
libpng12.so.0(PNG12_0)(64bit)  
libtiff.so.3()(64bit)  
libz.so.1()(64bit)  
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)  
[matej at viklef redhat]$ 

> Seriously, if you believe this is a review blocker, please re-read the
> guidelines and elaborate on what use of BuildConflicts seems legitimate to you.

I have no clue what BuildConflicts is good for, and I have never seen it to be
used before, but this is certainly not the case (see above).

> Also, thank you for bringing this up once the review was finished, even though
> this was present in the SPEC file since my first revision.  

I don't think there is any duty to be silent when I see stupidity in a package
which is soon to come to Fedora -- I haven't thought it is necessary to review
this package because I believed that ovasik will do proper job on it as usually
he does. Only when I tried to rebuild this package on my computer I got hit by
this, and so I jumped here before the damage would be hard to fix.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.