On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 10:16 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote:
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 11:08 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 06:03 -0400, buildsys(a)redhat.com wrote:
> > hal-0.5.9-0.git20070326.fc7
> > ---------------------------
> > * Mon Mar 26 2007 David Zeuthen <davidz(a)redhat.com> -
> > 0.5.9-0.git20070326
> > - Update to hal 0.5.9rc2 and hal-info-20070326
>
> These *need* to be split into separate SRPMS. I don't mind
> co-maintaining these if you want, but if we are updating machine quirks
> once a month or so, then we should be able to update one 100k no-arch
> package, rather than 4 or 5 multi-megabyte architecture specific
> packages.
>
> Sorry to harp on about this, but F7T3 is getting closer.
One, this bug is not a feature and that's why I've been punting it since
I'd rather spend my time getting features done before feature freeze.
Ahh, I figured it was a new feature, apologies.
Yes agreed, cheers for doing this.
to actually sanely do this. Third, I'd be happy to see you
co-maintain
the hal-info package and I think I even suggested you should submit the
hal-info SRPM for Fedora Extras. If it's in Extras already, it's simpler
to do the switch once the merge is complete. HAL will need a rebuild
_anyway_ to take advantage of libsmbios for backlight and rfkill on Dell
laptops.
Sure, I do enough shouting on this list to put my money where my mouth
is... ;-) I'll happily co-maintain hal-info. I'll read up on how to do
so tonight.
Richard.