[Bug 1806] New: Review request: Opera 11.50 beta

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1806 Summary: Review request: Opera 11.50 beta Product: Package Reviews Version: Current Platform: All OS/Version: GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: Review Request AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org ReportedBy: patryk.obara(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Estimated Hours: 0.0 Disclaimer: I am Opera employee, but I am submitting this not during my work hours, consider me volunteer with inside knowledge of Opera Software ;) Opera has been in rpmfusion wishlist for long time already: Well, there was a bit of confusion after we changed our EULA few years ago, but it is sorted out for long time already. See paragraph 2 in http://www.opera.com/eula/browser-linux/ - it explicitly states that you are free to distribute opera, as long as it's free to end users (as in beer) and not for embedded systems. And by software we mean binaries, not package itself - we are perfectly ok with repackaging. In fact, some distributions (Arch, Slackware, Gentoo) are repackaging Opera again already, and we are extremely happy about that :). Now, technical stuff: - installer included in tar.xz packages doesn't install files in places recommended by fedora packaging guidelines, that's why some directories and files needs to be moved in %install section - opera tries to keep it's dependencies count as low as possible - for 32bit binaries build-in rpm dependency generator works ok, but for 64bit packages it generates way too much stuff - that's why there is small dependency filter included - this specfile is not for stable release, but for beta - that's because we would rather prepare for next stable release than submit rather old Opera 11.11 - included pre/post scripts differ significantly from official opera packages, but that's because official packages are supposed to be distribution-agnostic - opera comes with small wrapper application for 32bit plugins; in 64bit packages this binary lands in /usr/lib64 with rest of opera binaries, but I don't think it's really a problem - I am somewhat experienced with rpmbuild, specfiles, etc, but I was never officially mentored in fedora packaging ;) * Full URLs to the spec file and source rpm of the package: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/420606/fedora-packages/opera.spec http://dl.dropbox.com/u/420606/fedora-packages/opera-11.50-1.1027.beta1.f... * A short description for the package: Opera is a small, fast, customizable, powerful and user-friendly web browser, as well as an Internet suite, including an email client, an IRC client, web developer tools (Opera Dragonfly), and a personal web server (Opera Unite). * Why this package is not eligible to be included in Fedora: non-free software * The output rpmlint gives on both the source and binary packages. Explain for each message why you've chosen to ignore it. rpmlint error rpmlint report all non-free licenses with warning I don't see anything weird about this; dependency generator script needs to be executable. This hardcoded path is hardcoded also in installation script, it appears in %install section; libdir macro obviously shouldn't be used here. Because I am repackaging tarball containing binaries. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.