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

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

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 at rpmfusion.org
        ReportedBy: patryk.obara at gmail.com
                CC: rpmfusion-package-review at 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:
> they welcome if anyone wants to mirror their packages but it doesn't say anything about if they allow repackaging and such.

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.fc15.src.rpm

* 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 opera-11.50-1.1027.beta1.fc15.x86_64.rpm 
> opera.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> customization
rpmlint error
> opera.x86_64: W: invalid-license Proprietary
rpmlint report all non-free licenses with warning

> $ rpmlint opera-11.50-1.1027.beta1.fc15.src.rpm 
> opera.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> customization
> opera.src: W: invalid-license Proprietary
> opera.src: W: strange-permission filter-requires.sh 0755L
I don't see anything weird about this; dependency generator script needs to be
executable.
> opera.src:55: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib
This hardcoded path is hardcoded also in installation script, it appears in
%install section; libdir macro obviously shouldn't be used here.
> opera.src: W: no-%build-section
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.