[Bug 188445] Review Request: bootconf
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: bootconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-23 03:05 EST --- bootconf-1.3-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 188445] Review Request: bootconf
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: bootconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version||1.3-1.fc9 -- 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 188445] Review Request: bootconf
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: bootconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-02 02:35 EST --- bootconf-1.3-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update bootconf'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-5995 -- 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 188445] Review Request: bootconf
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: bootconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-30 22:17 EST --- bootconf-1.3-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9 -- 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 188445] Review Request: bootconf
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: bootconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-27 06:57 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: bootconf Short Description: GRUB configuration utility Owners: mrsam Branches: F-9 InitialCC: mrsam Cvsextras Commits: yes -- 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 188445] Review Request: bootconf
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: bootconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-27 19:22 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 188445] Review Request: bootconf
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: bootconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-26 14:11 EST --- Ping, Sam. Please raise fedora‑cvs flag (see below) to ? when you will be ready. Everybody waiting for you :) -- 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 188445] Review Request: bootconf
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: bootconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-30 19:28 EST --- Wow, for some reason I really thought I had commented on this. Maybe I had typed in a comment but lost it somehow. In any case, I think you misunderstand the reasons we use the dist tag, but that's up to you. The desktop file looks fine to me. APPROVED -- 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 188445] Review Request: bootconf
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: bootconf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188445
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-08 08:01 EST ---
Ok, fixed up the desktop file:
http://www.courier-mta.org/bootconf/download/bootconf-1.3-1.src.rpm
I also swiped a suitable icon from gnome-desktop -- shouldn't be a problem.
I don't see any pressing reason to use %{dist} for now; at this time the
supported versions are fairly basic, and the GUI is not exotic enough to be
distro-sensitive. It'll probably work on releases going back several years.
--
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 188445] Review Request: bootconf
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: bootconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? -- 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 188445] Review Request: bootconf
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: bootconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-07 21:28 EST --- OK, I found some time to finish this up. Things look mostly good; there are a couple of really minor issues but at the end of my checklist I found one problematic issue. All of the things I found are below: I don't know what's up with the specfile permissions; it's probably a bug in either rpmbuild or rpmlint (since it probably should only complain about weird permissions like 200 or security problems like mode 666). You don't use the dist tag. I assume you don't want to use it and know how to juggle different specs between Fedora branches to preserve the upgrade path. The %description for the -gui package could use a period, I guess. Perhaps consider passing -p to install (both in the spec and in your Makefile) to preserve timestamps. And, the lone significant issue: The desktop file needs to be installed properly with desktop-file-install; see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop for more info. When you do that, things should go OK but you will notice a warning: bootconf.desktop: warning: value Application;System; for key Categories in group Desktop Entry contains a deprecated value Application I don't think that warning is particularly problematic. Sorry for not noticing this earlier. * source files match upstream: 8bda663ecc7aa661200a0b230302b0bc8ca9ce8c20128e9c8fef2775214d9b58 bootconf-1.2.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK (-gui package could use a period). * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: bootconf-1.2-2.noarch.rpm bootconf = 1.2-2 = /usr/bin/python bootconf-gui-1.2-2.noarch.rpm bootconf-gui = 1.2-2 = /bin/sh bootconf = 0:1.2-2 pygtk2 usermode * %check is not present; not possible to test this automatically. I installed and ran it and it seemed to work OK. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (update-desktop-database). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. X desktop file not installed properly. -- 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 188445] Review Request: bootconf
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: bootconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-03 08:41 EST --- http://www.courier-mta.org/bootconf/download/bootconf-1.2-2.src.rpm This should address everything except the permissions on the spec file. I don't know why rpmbuild does this. The spec file is packaged inside the tarball, the srpm gets created by rpmbuild -ta, and that's what you get. The spec file has normal permissions inside the tarball. My shell umask is 002, and that's what happens when my build script runs rpmbuild -ta. I don't know what's going on. -- 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 188445] Review Request: bootconf
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: bootconf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188445
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|mta.com)|
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-02 16:34 EST ---
Sorry, I was just doing triage on these old tickets, trying to find out whether
the submitters were still interested.
But this seems pretty simple, and most of the comments above seem to have been
addressed. This builds fine on current F9/rawhide; rpmlint is down to:
bootconf.src: W: strange-permission bootconf.spec 0600
I don't particularly care about this as long as it's not 666 or something like
that.
bootconf-gui.noarch: W: no-documentation
bootconf-gui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pam.d/bootconf
bootconf-gui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/security/console.apps/bootconf
All addressed as OK above.
The specfile still refers to a file which doesn't exist when you look at the
srpm. You have to realize that you need to unpack the tarball and look there
for the license file. I brought the topic on fedora-packaging and nobody else
stated an opinion so I won't block on it though I do think it's suboptimal.
(Honestly there's not much that's copyrightable in a specfile anyway.)
If you're going to use the macro-ized forms of things like %{__make} then you
should use %{__rm} and %{__cat} as well.
There are a couple of issues with the scriptlets. Firstly, for the scriptlets
you have, you need fine-grained dependencies for desktop-file-utils (like
Requires(pre):. However, the desktop-database section of
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets has some explanatory
text about making the scriptlets so that they don't depend on desktop-file-utils
; can you check that page and update accordingly?
I will also say that I understand previous comments about this duplicating
existing functionality, but I don't really have a problem with that. If there
were a hard rule against it, we wouldn't have apt and such in the distro.
--
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 188445] Review Request: bootconf
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: bootconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||mta.com) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-29 18:17 EST --- It's been three months since the last comment; is there still interest in this package? -- 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 188445] Review Request: bootconf
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: bootconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-29 20:09 EST --- Hmmm -- I seem to have missed the January ping. Anyway, please take a look at http://www.courier-mta.org/bootconf/download/bootconf-1.2-1.src.rpm There's no need to wait months for me to respond. Generally, if I'm not heard from in a week, it's time to pester me again. -- 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 188445] Review Request: bootconf
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: bootconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-01-18 01:37 EST --- It's been fifteen months since there was last activity on this ticket, and twenty months since there was last any response from the submitter. The package still builds, but it does elicit a few complaints from rpmlint and will need tweaks for system changes in the past two years: bootconf.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog - 1.0-1 Changelog needs to indicate the version. bootconf.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL The version of the GPL is required. bootconf.noarch: W: no-url-tag Please unclude a URL: tag with a pointer to the upstream web site. bootconf-gui.noarch: W: no-documentation Not a problem. bootconf-gui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pam.d/bootconf bootconf-gui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/security/console.apps/bootconf These are OK. bootconf-gui.noarch: E: use-old-pam-stack /etc/pam.d/bootconf (line 10) The pam_stack module isn't used these days; include should be used instead. Also, the specfile is copyrighted and points to some other file for information. But I guess that file is buried in the tarball, which is rather suboptimal. If the specfile is under GPL then please include the required GPL notice. -- 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 188445] Review Request: bootconf
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: bootconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163776 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-30 12:43 EST --- Sorry, I'm not interested in reviewing this further at the moment. Reassigning, back to FE-NEW. -- 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 188445] Review Request: bootconf
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: bootconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 23:52 EST --- The more proper way to disable rhgb is to set GRAPHICAL=no in /etc/sysconfig/init rather than messing with boot options. The boot option seems ment more for temporarily disabling rhgb, and would make far more sense if it was called norhgb and had the opposite effect. ;P -- 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 188445] Review Request: bootconf
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: bootconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-15 16:48 EST --- I am not saying to use grubby or booty instead if a graphical app is desired by you, but rather that grubby/booty achieves important bootloader independance and more robust/safe editing of /etc/grub.conf -- and should be used as a backend if this app is to be released. For the record, anaconda uses booty. That's all I'm going to add on 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 188445] Review Request: bootconf
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: bootconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-12 09:49 EST --- I'm just trying to provide useful feedback here, so please take these comments as such. Yes, I understand it's *NOT* a multiple bootloader configuration tool, and I'm asking *why* it isn't. The kernel boot command line is owned by the bootloader, and you're configuring the bootloader -- so the question is relevant. Have you looked at grubby and booty? If not, please do. I ran the app, and yes, it allows configuration of just *three* kernel boot parameters. There are many more kernel boot options than this, why pick just these three? This seems to be of limited value, and I'm asking these questions to understand why the tools out there aren't already doing the job. If we want to provide human-understandable editing of these options for people who don't know what they do, well, aren't these people capable of editing grub.conf? For those that aren't, a full list of arguments would make a lot more sense -- and this should be integrated into something that is also capable of adding and removing kernels/initrds and general bootloader configuration. Only being able to edit 3 options doesn't seem useful to me. Maybe I'm not seeing something. But if such a tool were to be included, I would expect it should be able to include most *any* kernel option, and it should support multiple bootloaders because such support is already provided free via grubby and booty. This would include kickstart options, root options, and so forth. The code also is totally commentless, for what it's worth. I did not look much deeper than this because of the lack of comments, and that I am unable to run pychecker on it. From README: bootconf will search and update every kernel line in grub.conf, setting the requested options. When reading the existing boot configuration, bootconf parses only the first kernel entry in grub.conf While the 3 arguments in question are fairly harmless, in general kernel parameter customization should affect a selected kernel or a selected list of kernels, not every kernel. From running the GUI, that intended behavior is not obvious. The app also just throws an IOError when invoked with an account that can't read /etc/grub.conf, versus allowing the user to authenticate or throwing up a more helpful warning message. -- 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 188445] Review Request: bootconf
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: bootconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 10:45 EST --- I did not look at this very closely, though I should add that grubby (command line app) and booty (python library) already support multiple boot loaders. If you would like to create a GUI for booty, that sounds like a good thing, although I am not sure if grubby needs a replacement as it already works pretty darn well. It makes good sense, IMHO, to support multiple boot loaders, otherwise the app seems to collide a bit with grubconf. Per the grubconf page, grubconf seems to be being replaced by one of the Gnome system tools for boot configuration: http://www.gnome.org/projects/gst/screenshots/boot.jpg Which looks like an upgrade to what is in FC5 today. Administration/bootloader is fairly useless as it only lets you pick which bootloader to use. -- 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 188445] Review Request: bootconf
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: bootconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 18:19 EST --- bootconf is not a multiple bootloader configuration tool. bootconf is a configuration tool for the kernel boot command line: enable/disable rhgb boot; enable/disable quiet boot; enable/disable VESA framebuffer. -- 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
