[Bug 194566] Review Request: 915resolution
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: 915resolution Alias: 915resolution https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=194566 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-10-14 20:51 EST --- Please branch for F-8. Thanks! :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 194566] Review Request: 915resolution
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: 915resolution Alias: 915resolution https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=194566 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-10-14 21:24 EST --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 194566] Review Request: 915resolution
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: 915resolution Alias: 915resolution https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194566 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||915resolution -- 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 194566] Review Request: 915resolution
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: 915resolution https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194566 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-02 08:06 EST --- I'm a bit disapointed to see this package has gone in, when apparently many people were opposed to it in bug #186391. I also agree with Paul about the package lacking user-friendliness, which is why I have included an init script and a /etc/sysconfig/ file in my 855resolution package. Please consider merging stuff from my 855resolution package into this one. -- 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 194566] Review Request: 915resolution
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: 915resolution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194566
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 18:39 EST ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Bad
---
It really does need to be enclosed in a wrapper with an example script for use
in %{_sysconfdir} - as it stands, it's one of those applications that you
install and wonder why you did - at least with something in %{_sysconfdir}
users
will know what to do (or where to look!)
Fix the issue in BAD and I'm happy to approve it.
Is hdparm a service? They both perform the same sort of function -- run once at
boot to tweak various interface settings of a physical device.
If someone has installed this package, then either they know what they're doing
(and can find README.fedora), or they don't and this package shouldn't try to do
anything with their system. If they do, they're still going to have to
configure it based on the particulars of their hardware, so the amount of
user-work is the same either way. The package-supplied README is quite detailed
in the particulars of the proper use of the program.
A full-blown sysv-style service wrapper around would turn this very simple
package into a much more complex beast, with addtional scripts, documentation,
additional bits in the spec, etc, than it warrants. It introduces additional
complexity at a net of questionable benefit -- especially when we consider that
this package, while useful to those who need its functionality _now_, is
predestined to have a very limited lifespan.
--
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 194566] Review Request: 915resolution
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: 915resolution https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194566 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 19:05 EST --- Okay. The considered opinion of others is that as it stands, it would be simple enough to create a script, but it isn't needed. On that basis... APPROVED Don't forget to close this bug and set the resolve bug to NEXTRELEASE -- 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 194566] Review Request: 915resolution
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: 915resolution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194566
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-28 05:29 EST ---
Good
rpmlint is clean for the binary, debuginfo and src rpms
requires list is fine
permissions correctly set
builds cleanly in mock (x86)
README.fedora added to the package
tarball version matches upstream
Bad
---
It really does need to be enclosed in a wrapper with an example script for use
in %{_sysconfdir} - as it stands, it's one of those applications that you
install and wonder why you did - at least with something in %{_sysconfdir} users
will know what to do (or where to look!)
Minor
-
release version is one off - this one should be 2 (there is no release 0!)
public domain as a license is fine for FE, but has caused issues in Germany.
This is not just FC, but lots of others. As it stands, FC is fine with it as a
license.
Fix the issue in BAD and I'm happy to approve it.
--
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 194566] Review Request: 915resolution
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: 915resolution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194566
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 18:40 EST ---
Let's make a start
# will be set to -1 on build/release
Release:0%{?dist}
The release should reflect the release (in other words, the build number). It
goes up, not down
%description ends in a .
I can't see how this package would be instantated by the host machine. Is it
supposed to be called directly, as a service or needing integration into
xorg.conf (or similar)?
--
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 194566] Review Request: 915resolution
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: 915resolution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194566
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 18:51 EST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Let's make a start
# will be set to -1 on build/release
Release:0%{?dist}
The release should reflect the release (in other words, the build number). It
goes up, not down
Sorry, that could have been more clearly expressed... It'll go to one.
%description ends in a .
Isn't this only %summary which shouldn't end in a period?
I can't see how this package would be instantated by the host machine. Is it
supposed to be called directly, as a service or needing integration into
xorg.conf (or similar)?
Right now, it's up to the user to configure. I call it with the correct
resolution values at boot in /etc/rc.local, for instance. It would certainly be
possible to wrap the entire thing in a service, but 1) that would still require
user configuration as to which video modes to override, and 2) it's not worth
that effort given the xorg driver has been in a state of not needing this real
soon now for the last several months.
--
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 194566] Review Request: 915resolution
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: 915resolution https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194566 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 18:55 EST --- The release should already be one as soon as you package the original version. Not sure about the user to configure bit. Personally, I'd wrap it in a service and install a set of default modes (they can all be commented out). At least everything is in place when the xorg driver gets out of the stable and into the big, bad world. -- 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 194566] Review Request: 915resolution
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: 915resolution https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194566 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 19:13 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) The release should already be one as soon as you package the original version. Bumped. Not sure about the user to configure bit. Personally, I'd wrap it in a service and install a set of default modes (they can all be commented out). At least everything is in place when the xorg driver gets out of the stable and into the big, bad world. For a temporary (alebit turning into a long-term) fix, I still don't think it's worth that effort -- as soon as the xorg update is released in core, this program's function is obviated. If someone is installing this package, they're going to need to know what to do with it regardless of if there's a service wrapper or not. I did, however, stick a README.fedora in this release, with a brief here's how to get it going on boot synopsis... Spec URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/915resolution.spec SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/915resolution-0.5.2-1.fc5.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 194566] Review Request: 915resolution
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: 915resolution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194566
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 19:31 EST ---
Is the .fc5 at the end of the src.rpm your own rename? if it is, please don't.
src rpms are release agnostic.
The spec file still has the release as 0?{%dist}. This should be 2 as it's the
2nd release made. Remove the 0/-1 comment, it's wrong!
You don't need the make clean (unless the source tarball has a pre-made
configure with pre-made bits and pieces) in %build
I'd prefer install -m 755 for the package into %{_sbindir}. Also, as it's only
one program going into %{_sbindir}, give it the name in %files
The changelog hasn't altered. Each time you change something, it gets
documented, so it should read
%changelog
* Mon 25 Dec 2006 Paul F. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.5-2
- fixed silly mistake in the spec file
- added ia64 and sparcx86 patches
* Sun 24 Dec 2006 Paul F. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.5-1
- added BR foo
- removed R bar
- added a b c and d into docs
- chmod 0755 sbindir-foobar
- bumped to new version
* Sun 17 Dec 2006 Paul F. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.4-11
(you get the idea)
--
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 194566] Review Request: 915resolution
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: 915resolution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194566
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 19:45 EST ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Is the .fc5 at the end of the src.rpm your own rename? if it is, please don't.
src rpms are release agnostic.
I define %dist in my ~/.rpmmacros file, for my own sanity when building
packages... It's not a rename.
The spec file still has the release as 0?{%dist}. This should be 2 as it's the
2nd release made. Remove the 0/-1 comment, it's wrong!
Hit reload on your browser, it's out there at 1 :)
You don't need the make clean (unless the source tarball has a pre-made
configure with pre-made bits and pieces) in %build
It does :)
I'd prefer install -m 755 for the package into %{_sbindir}. Also, as it's only
one program going into %{_sbindir}, give it the name in %files
Are these personal preferences, or do you consider them blockers?
The changelog hasn't altered. Each time you change something, it gets
documented, so it should read
[...snip...]
(you get the idea)
Again, hit reload... :)
--
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 194566] Review Request: 915resolution
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: 915resolution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194566
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 19:50 EST ---
As it stands, I've not built it yet (will do on the laptop - I can then give it
a try). However, I would consider the install -m 0755 to be essential. The file
going into %{_sbindir}, it makes life easier for us mere reviewers (plus, it's
only one file, so makes things clear to others wanting to package)
Hitting reload worked, though the release should be 2.
--
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
