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: w3m https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226535 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-24 15:01 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=150834) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=150834&action=view) w3m.spec with some fixes (0.5.1-18) Well, for 0.5.1-17.fc7: * Source0 - Please check: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL (A) It seems that newest gc is 6.8. * CFlags (Please see the attached mock build log) - Fedora specific compilation flags are not passed (for gc.a). For gc.a, it seems okay when ABI_FLAG is set as RPM_OPT_FLAGS And.. actually this changes debuginfo contents. (B) NOTE: Usually gc should be seperated from this package (w3m) and other packages for gc should be created. In this case, gc package should provide shared library (not static archive). However is this too late for F7? * Version provides ------------------------------------------------ Provides: webclient = 0.5.1 ------------------------------------------------ - Any reason to provide version-dependent virtual dependency? I don't see the reason, and other package which provide "webclient" virtual dependency does not specify version. * Requires - For main package: ------------------------------------------------ Requires: perl, openssl ------------------------------------------------ These should be removed. rpmbuild automatically finds these dependencies. * spec file description ------------------------------------------------ [ -n "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" -a "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" != / ] && rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ------------------------------------------------ - The part [ ...... ] is redundant and should be removed. RPM_BUILD_ROOT _MUST_ not be empty or / . * Timestamps ------------------------------------------------ install -m 644 %{SOURCE10} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sysconfdir}/w3m/config ------------------------------------------------ - Please keep timestamp. i.e. use "install -p". * Misc * w3m.lang usage ------------------------------------------------ find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libexecdir} -type f -print | grep -v w3mimgdisplay | sed -e "s,$RPM_BUILD_ROOT,," >> w3m.lang ........ %files ........ %exclude %{_libexecdir}/w3m/w3mimgdisplay ------------------------------------------------ - At the first description, w3mimgdisplay are already excluded. Anyway, these can be unified. Simply, ------------------------------------------------ %files ....... %{_mandir}/man1/w3mman.1* %{_libexecdir}/%{name}/ %exclude %{_libexecdir}/w3m/w3mimgdisplay ------------------------------------------------ should be okay. * Conditional dependency - Well, I found that when I rebuild w3m locally, inline image handler is enabled for x11 and fb, while for mockbuild only x11 image handler is enabled This is because configure reads: ------------------------------------------------ 5785 enable_image=x11 5786 case "`uname -s`" in 5787 Linux|linux|LINUX) 5788 if test -c /dev/fb0; then 5789 enable_image=x11,fb 5790 fi;; 5791 esac 5792 fi 5793 save_ifs="$IFS"; IFS=","; 5794 for img in $enable_image; do ------------------------------------------------ However, on mockbuild /dev/fb0 is not created, so fb image handler will not be enabled. To fix this, configure option must handle this explicitly. * lang - for Japanese documents, these should be treated as %lang(ja). * Documentation (C) doc*/w3m.1 seems unneeded, as they are already included as man files. However, I leave this as how you judge. (D) Question: - Should all the documents in doc-jp/ files should be converted from EUC-JP to UTF-8? I think so, however, if you want to do so, please keep timestamps on these files even after encodings are converted, as these documents are 3-6 years old. ------------------------------------------------- My attached spec file should fix all the issues above expect (A)-(D). Please check my spec file and comment on (A)-(D) * NOTE I have not checked yet * what documentation should be added to this rpm * whether license is correct and has no problem * some other issues may exist -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
