[Bug 193380] Review Request: hardinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hardinfo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193380 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |201449 nThis|| Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |m) | -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193380] Review Request: hardinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hardinfo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193380 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |NEEDINFO AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||m) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 10:51 EST --- This bug has been in the NEEDINFO state for six weeks now. I will close it in one week if there is no further response. -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193380] Review Request: hardinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hardinfo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193380 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO_REPORTER -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193380] Review Request: hardinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: hardinfo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193380
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 10:18 EST ---
* Wrong. This package does not use any cached pixmap location, but
an absolute path in the .desktop file. Touching the hicolor directory
and running gtk-update-icon-cache is completely useless here.
* Bad:
Software is not compiled with Fedora global %{optflags}.
Image files are executable.
Missing:
Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig
Requires(post)un: /sbin/ldconfig
Duplicate .desktop files.
--
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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193380] Review Request: hardinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hardinfo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193380 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 10:19 EST --- Missing: Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig Requires(post)un: /sbin/ldconfig Should read: Missing: Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193380] Review Request: hardinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: hardinfo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193380
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-27 04:25 EST ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Damien, that's why I had included this in my spec file send to you
Builds fine in mock and works as expected.
* rpmlint output:
W: hardinfo no-documentation
At least the license file should be included.
%doc LICENSE
* there is no need for /sbin/ldconfig in the scripts
%post
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
if [ -x %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache ]; then
%{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
fi
%postun
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
if [ -x %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache ]; then
%{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
fi
%{_datadir}/applications/fedora-%{name}.desktop
* there are now two desktop files in %{_datadir}/applications
as has already been said, just modify the included
desktop file
*
desktop-file-install --vendor fedora\
--dir ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_datadir}/applications \
--add-category X-Fedora \
--add-category System \
--delete-original \
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop
--
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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193380] Review Request: hardinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: hardinfo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193380
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-27 04:32 EST ---
Also gtk-update-icon-cache is not needed either, since the icon is not
installed in the %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor directory.
--
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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193380] Review Request: hardinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hardinfo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193380 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-27 04:39 EST --- To make the icon to show properly in the gnome applications menu. see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193929#c15 -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193380] Review Request: hardinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hardinfo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193380 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 15:15 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) Thanks for your review, but for the moment, I would like to know if the package works fine, I'll add pciutils in the require later. The package should at least build in mock, then we can go into the details. -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193380] Review Request: hardinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hardinfo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193380 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 17:51 EST --- - Fix all executable bits on modules.conf uidefs.xml benchmark.data - Add %post and %postun section - Add License file in %file section SPEC URL : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/hardinfo/hardinfo.spec SRPMS URL : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/hardinfo/hardinfo-0.4.1-3.fc6.src.rpm -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193380] Review Request: hardinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hardinfo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193380 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-23 04:11 EST --- Thanks for your review, but for the moment, I would like to know if the package works fine, I'll add pciutils in the require later. -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193380] Review Request: hardinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hardinfo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193380 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-23 14:30 EST --- along with pciutils as BR these have to be fixed: chitlesh(i386)[0]$rpmlint -i hardinfo-0.4.1-1.i386.rpm W: hardinfo no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. E: hardinfo script-without-shellbang /usr/share/hardinfo/benchmark.conf This executable text file does not contain a shebang, thus it cannot be properly executed. Often this is a sign of spurious executable bits for a non-script file, but can also be a case of a missing shebang. To fix this error, find out which case of the above it is, and either remove the executable bits or add the shebang. E: hardinfo script-without-shellbang /usr/share/hardinfo/modules.conf This executable text file does not contain a shebang, thus it cannot be properly executed. Often this is a sign of spurious executable bits for a non-script file, but can also be a case of a missing shebang. To fix this error, find out which case of the above it is, and either remove the executable bits or add the shebang. E: hardinfo script-without-shellbang /usr/share/hardinfo/uidefs.xml This executable text file does not contain a shebang, thus it cannot be properly executed. Often this is a sign of spurious executable bits for a non-script file, but can also be a case of a missing shebang. To fix this error, find out which case of the above it is, and either remove the executable bits or add the shebang. E: hardinfo script-without-shellbang /usr/share/hardinfo/benchmark.data This executable text file does not contain a shebang, thus it cannot be properly executed. Often this is a sign of spurious executable bits for a non-script file, but can also be a case of a missing shebang. To fix this error, find out which case of the above it is, and either remove the executable bits or add the shebang. and Im wondering why have you not patch the hardinfo.desktop instead of creating a new hardinfo.desktop -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193380] Review Request: hardinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hardinfo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193380 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 13:09 EST --- SPEC FILE : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/hardinfo/hardinfo.spec SRPM FILE : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/hardinfo/hardinfo-0.4.1-1.fc6.src.rpm - Upgrade to 0.4.1 version - Add glux-utils xorg-x11-utils in BR - Frst point about shared object is fixed in this release -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193380] Review Request: hardinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hardinfo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193380 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 13:27 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) SPEC FILE : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/hardinfo/hardinfo.spec SRPM FILE : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/hardinfo/hardinfo-0.4.1-1.fc6.src.rpm - Upgrade to 0.4.1 version - Add glux-utils xorg-x11-utils in BR You probably misread, you still need: Requires: glx-utils, xorg-x11-utils, pciutils -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193380] Review Request: hardinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hardinfo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193380 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 13:41 EST --- Hoops, ok it's fixed. -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193380] Review Request: hardinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hardinfo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193380 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 14:45 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) (In reply to comment #3) - Fix BR, add wich, pciutils-devel You need BR pciutils for /sbin/lspci (checked for by configure) It is indeed BR pciutils and not pciutils-devel that is needed. -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193380] Review Request: hardinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hardinfo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193380 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 13:52 EST --- - Fix BR, add wich, pciutils-devel Spec URL: http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/hardinfo/hardinfo.spec SRPM URL: http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/hardinfo/hardinfo-0.4-2.fc6.src.rpm -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193380] Review Request: hardinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hardinfo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193380 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 14:14 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) - Fix BR, add wich, pciutils-devel You need BR pciutils for /sbin/lspci (checked for by configure) What about the other points from comment #1? Also needed runtime requires: xdpyinfo (glx-utils) glxinfo (xorg-x11-utils) lspci (pciutils) -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193380] Review Request: hardinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hardinfo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193380 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-01 02:30 EST --- 1)Got some Source compilation warnings In file included from computer.c:68: ./arch/this/processor.h: In function 'processor_get_capabilities_from_flags': ./arch/this/processor.h:253: warning: value computed is not used In file included from computer.c:71: ./arch/this/samba.h: In function 'scan_shared_directories': ./arch/this/samba.h:71: warning: value computed is not used 2)Add INSTALL GPL REDME files and add to SPEC %doc INSTALL GPL README -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193380] Review Request: hardinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: hardinfo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193380
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: hardinfo|Review Request: hardinfo
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-27 18:19 EST ---
* Needed BuildRequires: which, pciutils
* There is no documentation in the source file, not even a license file.
Upstream should be notified about this.
* Shared object files must not reside in %{_datadir}/hardinfo, they
must go to %{_libdir}/hardinfo. If necessary you need to patch
the source code.
--
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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
