On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 18:22:25 Sergio Ahumada Navea wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > On 08/29/2012 06:13 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote: > > Report Date: 08/29/2012 > > Reporters Name: Stephen Kelly > > Package/Build date: 08/29/2012 > > Package name: > > qt-linux-opensource-5.0.0-beta1-x86_64-ubuntu1204-offline.run > > andqt-windows-opensource-5.0.0-beta1-x86-offline.exe Package type: > > Installer (Offline) Mkspec used: > > na > > > > Is correctly signed: No > > Can you create a bug report for this with the expected result ?
https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-27063 > > > Displays appropriate gfx & strings & version no.: Yes > > Offers the correct license(s): No > > So, should we be offered the GPL license as well ? I see no reason not to. > > > Offers sane default install directory: No > > What do you think a "sane default install directory" should look like ? I think I mis-clicked. It did offer a sane default install directory. > > Sets correct environment variables for shell: No > > Can somebody clarify what should we test here ? QTDIR does not sound > like something we should check to me. Marius S-O ? It also makes sense to append/prepend the install prefix to CMAKE_PREFIX_PATH in that shell. I don't think that's a beta blocker though. I don't think the package feedback form is telling enough about what is 'expected' though, in general. > > > Correctly creates Desktop shortcuts: No > > Can you please create a bug report ? https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-27064 > > > Sets correct environment variables for shell: No > > Can somebody clarify what should we test here ? QTDIR does not sound > like something we should check to me. Marius S-O ? > > > Comments: > > There is no sha1 information available to verify package signatures. > > You mean md5sum's ? Either md5sums or sha1sums. Or both. Any checksum would make it possible to verify the package is genuine. I think using sha1sums is more common due to md5 being cracked. > > Assistant works correctly: No > > Can you create a bug report or do you mean something like > https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-26677 ? Yes, that is what I mean. I did not select to install the source component (why would I?). There is no indication that I need to install the source component in order to get documentation. I think that should be fixed for the beta. Thanks, -- Stephen Kelly <[email protected]> | Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company www.kdab.com || Germany +49-30-521325470 || Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090 KDAB - Qt Experts - Platform-Independent Software Solutions
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Releasing mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/releasing
