Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
Summary: Review Request: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw) Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: patrick.pichon@laposte.net QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://ezix.org/software/files/lshw-B.02.10.tar.gz SRPM URL: http://ezix.org/software/files/lshw-B.02.10.tar.gz Description: lshw (Hardware Lister) is a small tool to provide detailed information on the hardware configuration of the machine. It can report exact memory configuration, firmware version, mainboard configuration, CPU version and speed, cache configuration, bus speed, etc. on DMI-capable x86 or EFI (IA-64) systems and on some PowerPC machines
PS/ I have found that tools very useful and already available on various distribution
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: lshw - |Review Request: lshw - |Hardware Lister (lshw) |Hardware Lister (lshw) Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro Flag| |fedora-review?
------- Additional Comments From wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-22 14:21 EST ------- For a start: - It would have made life easier for reviewers if you had provided links to the spec and src.rpm, not to a tar - Vendor should not be used, it will set by the build system - Source should be a full URL to the downloadable file - BuildRoot does not respect the current mandatory value (you can leave it alone for now, the value is still under discussion) as specified by wiki/PackagingGuidelines - There is no Changelog entry
More comments later
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-22 14:54 EST ------- Here we go: comments after successfully building in mock/rawhide/i386: - build step does not take into account $RPM_OPT_FLAGS - the generated debuginfo package is empty - according to wiki/PackagingGuidelines/Conditional dependencies, the GUI rpm should be generated by default, so I suggest to use as default the "with_gui" flag rather then "without gui" - what is the rationale behind installing the binaries with bin.bin as owner and 555 as permissions? - I see no reason in defining the name, version and release in private macros and then using them to set the Name, Version and Release tags. You can as well define directly those three and use them later in the spec. - last but nit least, rpmlint says E: lshw description-line-too-long Please split the line in chunks of no more then 72 chars
PS: in the previous comment, the line about the Vendor tag should have been: Vendor should not be used, it will be set by the build system (see wiki/PackagingGuidelines/Tags)
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-22 15:00 EST ------- You should also fix the following warnings triggers by rpmlint when processing the src.rpm obtained via rpmbuild -ts lshw.tar.gz:
W: lshw strange-permission lshw.spec 0600 Obvious fix here W: lshw setup-not-quiet Just use %setup -q W: lshw mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 2, tab: line 54) Please use either spaces or tabs
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(patrick.pichon@lap | |oste.net)
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro 2007-03-09 21:29 EST ------- Patrick? Any progess in fixing the spec ?
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
patrick.pichon@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(patrick.pichon@lap| |oste.net) |
------- Additional Comments From patrick.pichon@laposte.net 2007-03-10 07:28 EST ------- I have contacted the owner of that software. He has mentioned that he is going to work on fixing some of those issue.
See http://ezix.org/project/ticket/111
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium
------- Additional Comments From patrick.pichon@laposte.net 2007-05-15 10:47 EST ------- I have discussed with my friend and he is having difficulties with the 'the generated debuginfo package is empty' He has no clue on what should be done.
On the other side he is also short of time, so if you can recommend update to the .spec he might be able to take them.
On the with_gui option by default, this is valid only if you have a GTK environment, so I think it is more reasonable to have by default only without_gtk
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From patrick.pichon@laposte.net 2007-05-15 10:49 EST ------- Here is an updated version of the .spec more in line with Fedora Packaging requirements
http://ezix.org/project/browser/packages/lshw/development/src/lshw.spec.in
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro 2007-05-15 10:54 EST ------- I will try to look at it as soon as my time permits.
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro 2007-05-16 08:18 EST ------- Please provide the src.rpm and spec in a downloadable format. I've tried to find out how to download them from trac but I did not discover the right buttons to press. wget http://ezix.org/project/browser/packages/lshw/development/src/lshw.spec.in gives some useless html stuff.
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From patrick.pichon@laposte.net 2007-05-16 11:24 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=154834) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=154834&action=vie...) lshw.spec
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From patrick.pichon@laposte.net 2007-05-16 11:24 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=154835) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=154835&action=vie...) rpm source package
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From patrick.pichon@laposte.net 2007-05-16 11:29 EST ------- The correct path to get the .spec.in is : http://ezix.org/source/packages/lshw/development/src/lshw.spec.in
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro 2007-05-16 16:42 EST ------- The spec provided by the link in comment #12 contains the string @VERSION@ instead of the current version, which makes it unusable.
I have built in mock the src.rpm from comment #11 and I have found the following issues: - the release field does not use %dist. It is not mandatory and you are allowed to not use it, but in this case it would be useful to provide a reason for avoiding to use it - Source 0 is not available (http://www.ezix.org/software/files/lshw-0.20070516152048.tar.gz) Please fix the path. - /usr/bin/install is part of the default buildroot, no need to specifically request it via BR - timestamps of the files included (docs mostly) are not preserved; usually this can be solved using "cp -p" or "install -p", as needed (for instance you could probably add INSTALL="%__install -p" to the make commands ) - the generated debuginfo rpm is empty. You should patch the Makefiles and remove the references to strip. In addition to that, at the first glance it looks like the "STRIP=/bin/true" lines from %install are useless - the changelog has not been updated to reflect the current version of the spec
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From lyonel@ezix.org 2007-05-16 19:08 EST ------- * The .spec file link of comment #12 is a *template* .spec file, that means that @VERSION@ is replaced at release time by proper version number. -> wontfix
* %dist is Fedora-specific -> wontfix
* only released versions are made available, therefore Source0 doesn't exist for snapshots -> wontfix
* /usr/bin/install build requirement will be removed
* good point about timestamps, this will be fixed
* 'stripping' of executables needs some rework
* changelog will only be updated for released versions -> wontfix
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro 2007-05-17 03:30 EST ------- If Source0 only exists for snapshots, then do not submit for review source rpms which rely on them. Please see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-c17fb8c1ce9be40da720... and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL. Same goes for Changelog (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-b7d622f4bb245300199c... for details).
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From lyonel@ezix.org 2007-06-05 16:23 EST ------- -debuginfo generation should be fixed now (in Subversion, cf. comment #12).
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro 2007-06-05 18:10 EST ------- Once again, please be as kind as to provide full URL for the actual spec and src.rpm that you want to be reviewed, not to templates. I really do not have the time to figure out how to retrieve the info from yet another svn
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro |nobody@fedoraproject.org Flag|fedora-review? |
------- Additional Comments From wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro 2007-06-08 10:08 EST ------- I am giving up the review, I do not have the time to dig for specs in svn.
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora
------- Additional Comments From yaneti@declera.com 2007-06-27 08:24 EST ------- To the submitter and upstream. While the spec template in the upstream tarball can be used as a starting point, its not what is under review here, and there are no expectations on the part of fedora on whats in it. It would not be used in any way during the build of the fedora package. The result of the review process should be a fedora specific spec file for the software in question to be included in the fedora cvs repo. It should conform to the fedora packaging guidelines. It should be prepared by the submitter and linked here for review.
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
terjeros@phys.ntnu.no changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |terjeros@phys.ntnu.no
------- Additional Comments From terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2007-06-27 11:30 EST ------- I was a bit quick and created a package before I saw this bz report.
I have now posted my work here:
SPEC: http://web.phys.ntnu.no/~terjeros/lshw/lshw.spec SRPMS: http://web.phys.ntnu.no/~terjeros/lshw/lshw-2.10-2.fc7.src.rpm
It's based on the 2.10 release tarball, the following is fixed:
patch to avoid stripping (debuginfo package is non empty), create desktop file for the GUI app (with icon), moved bins to /usr/bin, fixed buildroot, src url and url, build with %{optflags} and is rpmlint clean.
I can maintain this for Fedora over reporter can use my work to maintain it.
Anyway, of course it has to be reviewed first, Manuel do want to have a look?
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From dtimms@iinet.net.au 2007-08-01 09:16 EST ------- Patrick: Yanko is correct in stating the spec needs to be Fedora specific and live in the fedora cvs. Are you happy for Terje to take over and develop the spec for fedora ?
Terje: I am not a reviewer nor sponsor, but I want to help get this package into a suitable state to be included in Fedora. One thing I noticed is that upstream have released a later version: http://dev.ezix.org/software/files/lshw-B.02.11.tar.gz
Are you still keen to be maintainer for lshw ?
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2007-08-01 11:11 EST -------
Are you still keen to be maintainer for lshw ?
Yes, updated to 2.11:
SPECS: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/lshw/lshw.spec SRPMS: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/lshw/lshw-2.11-1.fc7.src.rpm
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From lyonel@ezix.org 2007-08-01 11:40 EST ------- Thank you Terje for taking care of the Fedora flavour ;)
Just one thing: the version is B.02.11, not 2.11. Please stick to the official version numbers to prevent confusion and problems with upgrades (RPM seems to think that B.02.11 < 2.04).
(In reply to comment #22)
Are you still keen to be maintainer for lshw ?
Yes, updated to 2.11:
SPECS: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/lshw/lshw.spec SRPMS: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/lshw/lshw-2.11-1.fc7.src.rpm
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2007-08-01 11:52 EST -------
Just one thing: the version is B.02.11, not 2.11. Please stick to the official version numbers to prevent confusion and problems with upgrades (RPM seems to think that B.02.11 < 2.04).
Ok, will your next major release be C.x.y or 1.0.x?
Different issue: does lshw need dmidecode or other tools to work?
- Terje
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From yaneti@declera.com 2007-08-01 11:58 EST ------- (In reply to comment #23)
Just one thing: the version is B.02.11, not 2.11. Please stick to the official version numbers to prevent confusion and problems with upgrades (RPM seems to think that B.02.11 < 2.04).
Your version numbers might make sense to you but they are way off the normal package versioning practices, and certainly alien to any distribution versioning scheme (which has the purpose of preventing stuff like B.02.11 < 2.04). So, since you seem to be keeping al least the numeric part of the version in some common order thats what he is using.
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From lyonel@ezix.org 2007-08-01 12:08 EST ------- * all releases are named T.x.y[.z] so there may be B.02.12 < B.02.20 < C.03.01
* lshw is trying to be self-contained so it doesn't require dmidecode, lspci, etc.
cheers, Lyonel.
(In reply to comment #24)
Just one thing: the version is B.02.11, not 2.11. Please stick to the official version numbers to prevent confusion and problems with upgrades (RPM seems to think that B.02.11 < 2.04).
Ok, will your next major release be C.x.y or 1.0.x?
Different issue: does lshw need dmidecode or other tools to work?
- Terje
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2007-08-01 12:18 EST -------
- all releases are named T.x.y[.z] so there may be B.02.12 < B.02.20 < C.03.01
Ok, that's fine.
- lshw is trying to be self-contained so it doesn't require dmidecode, lspci,
Good.
Updated package:
SPECS: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/lshw/lshw.spec SRPMS: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/lshw/lshw-B.02.11-1.fc7.src.rpm
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From lyonel@ezix.org 2007-08-01 12:36 EST ------- as a sidenote: for an explanation of that (weird?) versioning scheme, you can have a look at http://ezix.org/project/wiki/VersionNumbers
(In reply to comment #25)
(In reply to comment #23)
Just one thing: the version is B.02.11, not 2.11. Please stick to the official version numbers to prevent confusion and problems with upgrades (RPM seems to think that B.02.11 < 2.04).
Your version numbers might make sense to you but they are way off the normal package versioning practices, and certainly alien to any distribution versioning scheme (which has the purpose of preventing stuff like B.02.11 < 2.04). So, since you seem to be keeping al least the numeric part of the version in some common order thats what he is using.
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From yaneti@declera.com 2007-08-01 12:54 EST ------- (In reply to comment #28)
as a sidenote: for an explanation of that (weird?) versioning scheme, you can have a look at http://ezix.org/project/wiki/VersionNumbers
Some points on that. - You cannot expect people to obey your desire to not package your X.. or T.. versions. Especially in bleading edge Fedora land. And this is where this version scheme fails with rpm because X.00 > T.01 > C.02 - Fedora has guidelines on including such non-numeric information in the release field. These guidelines are probably the reason there is not a single package with non-numeric version in the repository. - All the other major distributions have stripped this field when packaging lshw.
(In reply to comment #25)
(In reply to comment #23)
Just one thing: the version is B.02.11, not 2.11. Please stick to the official version numbers to prevent confusion and problems with upgrades (RPM seems to think that B.02.11 < 2.04).
Your version numbers might make sense to you but they are way off the normal package versioning practices, and certainly alien to any distribution versioning scheme (which has the purpose of preventing stuff like B.02.11 < 2.04). So, since you seem to be keeping al least the numeric part of the version in some common order thats what he is using.
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From yaneti@declera.com 2007-08-01 13:10 EST ------- (In reply to comment #29)
...there is not a single package with non-numeric version in the repository.
Apparently I am wrong. There are 7. Still given the X. > T. > C. argument I think it would be wiser not to let that particular release distinction be first in the version.
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From lyonel@ezix.org 2007-08-01 14:42 EST ------- Even if it does include its own copy of PCI/USB/etc. database (normally provided by hwdata on Fedora I think), lshw can make use of it (if installed under the usual locations like /usr/share, etc.), especially if the hwdata version is more recent than lshw's...
Is there a way to "recommend" a package (as it's not really a dependency)? I think Debian has something similar to this. In practice requiring hwdata wouldn't be a big problem I guess...
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2007-08-01 18:31 EST -------
especially if the hwdata version is more recent than lshw's...
And one point of maintaining the db, I will look into this issue and make a decision, thanks for the hands up.
Is there a way to "recommend" a package (as it's not really a dependency)? I think Debian has something similar to this.
It's on Panu's (fedora rpm maintainer) TODO list if I am not mistaken.
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From dtimms@iinet.net.au 2007-08-01 20:05 EST ------- (In reply to comment #28)
as a sidenote: for an explanation of that (weird?) versioning scheme, you can have a look at http://ezix.org/project/wiki/VersionNumbers
A= alpha ? B= beta ? These would be the values that most quickly pop into my mind. If we ever packaged a T test or X experimental version, then this versioning system can no longer work (I understand they are not intended for release). They seem to tell me nothing more than the major version number. I would be keen to drop those preceding letter.
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From dtimms@iinet.net.au 2007-08-01 20:07 EST ------- (In reply to comment #32)
especially if the hwdata version is more recent than lshw's...
And one point of maintaining the db, I will look into this issue and make a decision, thanks for the hands up.
I would suggest that there should be only one implementation of each of these files within Fedora and hwdata package is currently the place for this information. My current F7 hwdata is a release from 2007-04, though.
My suggestion would be to not include in the lshw package files already supplied by hwdata. This means that when the source of those files is updated, and we want lshw to be able to use them, we would request an update to the hwdata package. lshw would Requires hwdata.
Lyonel: Is updated hwdata files a sole cause for a new lshw release ? If you are preparing to release a fix/enhancement, do you always retrieve/include updated hwdata files ?
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From dtimms@iinet.net.au 2007-08-01 20:42 EST ------- (In reply to comment #27)
Just a quick look at this stage: . Should the comment for lshw be different from lshw-gui to indicate the second is a gui app ? Can the gui output the described file formats ?
. Does the gui app require the cli app ?
SRPMS: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/lshw/lshw-B.02.11-1.fc7.src.rpm
That does not appear to be a src rpm. You need to rpmbuild the .spec to get a .src.rpm. That is what you need to post, along with the spec for review. Lots of good information on fedoraproject wiki.
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From dtimms@iinet.net.au 2007-08-01 20:46 EST ------- (In reply to comment #35)
SRPMS: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/lshw/lshw-B.02.11-1.fc7.src.rpm
That does not appear to be a src rpm.
Sorry, I was thinking bin rpm when I wrote this - please ignore, DaveT.
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From dtimms@iinet.net.au 2007-08-01 20:48 EST ------- Can you please provide the output of rpmlint on both the src and bin rpms ?
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2007-08-02 03:06 EST -------
Should the comment for lshw be different from lshw-gui to indicate the second is a gui app ?
Yes, good point, will change.
Can the gui output the described file formats ?
Does the gui app require the cli app ?
Will check.
That does not appear to be a src rpm. You need to rpmbuild the .spec to get a .src.rpm. That is what you need to post, along with the spec for review. Lots of good information on fedoraproject wiki.
Sorry, but currently I maintain 9 packages in Fedora, I know how to create a srpm...
Can you please provide the output of rpmlint on both the src and bin rpms ?
There are no output :-)
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From lyonel@ezix.org 2007-08-02 03:20 EST ------- Just for clarification: lshw always uses *both* DBs (its own copy, which is updated before every release, therefore usually more recent) and the system's, so it gets the most up-to-date information. Stripping lshw from its DB would mean that we force it to use outdated data (10 April 2007 on my machine).
(In reply to comment #34)
(In reply to comment #32)
especially if the hwdata version is more recent than lshw's...
And one point of maintaining the db, I will look into this issue and make a decision, thanks for the hands up.
I would suggest that there should be only one implementation of each of these files within Fedora and hwdata package is currently the place for this information. My current F7 hwdata is a release from 2007-04, though.
My suggestion would be to not include in the lshw package files already supplied by hwdata. This means that when the source of those files is updated, and we want lshw to be able to use them, we would request an update to the hwdata package. lshw would Requires hwdata.
Lyonel: Is updated hwdata files a sole cause for a new lshw release ? If you are preparing to release a fix/enhancement, do you always retrieve/include updated hwdata files ?
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From lyonel@ezix.org 2007-08-02 03:23 EST ------- (In reply to comment #35)
(In reply to comment #27)
Just a quick look at this stage: . Should the comment for lshw be different from lshw-gui to indicate the second is a gui app ? Can the gui output the described file formats ?
yes it can save hw config as XML, HTML and text
. Does the gui app require the cli app ?
no, but they both share some data files. I think Debian (or is it Ubuntu) split lshw into 3 packages: lshw-data, lshw and lshw-gui
SRPMS: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/lshw/lshw-B.02.11-1.fc7.src.rpm
That does not appear to be a src rpm. You need to rpmbuild the .spec to get a .src.rpm. That is what you need to post, along with the spec for review. Lots of good information on fedoraproject wiki.
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2007-08-04 14:08 EST ------- New version is uploaded:
SPEC: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/lshw/lshw.spec SRPM: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/lshw/lshw-B.02.11-2.fc7.src.rpm
I have verified that lshw-gui need lshw and that lshw is using data from hwdata (if found).
hwdata is not very frequent updated in Fedora, hence it's little value in requiring hwdata. If this changes and lshw releases is slowing down, hwdata can be a requirement in later lshw releases in fedora.
License tag is changed to GPLv2 (as I read COPYING to be GPL versoin 2 only, correct?)
More information about license tag:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/60553
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From lyonel@ezix.org 2007-08-05 08:32 EST ------- Looks good to me. I'd have separated SVG cliparts from core lshw package, though: they're only used by lshw-gui.
You are correct about the license: it is still GPLv2 (I still have no firm stance on GPLv3 so I decided to stick to a well-known and well-accepted license for now).
Another useful trick w/ GUI could be an integration with Fedora's consolehelper (as lshw must be run as root to report anything useful)
(In reply to comment #41)
New version is uploaded:
SPEC: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/lshw/lshw.spec SRPM: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/lshw/lshw-B.02.11-2.fc7.src.rpm
I have verified that lshw-gui need lshw and that lshw is using data from hwdata (if found).
hwdata is not very frequent updated in Fedora, hence it's little value in requiring hwdata. If this changes and lshw releases is slowing down, hwdata can be a requirement in later lshw releases in fedora.
License tag is changed to GPLv2 (as I read COPYING to be GPL versoin 2 only, correct?)
More information about license tag:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/60553
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2007-08-05 08:41 EST -------
Looks good to me. I'd have separated SVG cliparts from core lshw package, though: they're only used by lshw-gui.
Yes, will do.
Another useful trick w/ GUI could be an integration with Fedora's consolehelper (as lshw must be run as root to report anything useful)
Will look into this, it would indeed be nice.
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2007-08-05 10:07 EST ------- Updated packages: o moved artwork to gui subpackage o support for consolehelper (it seems to work too :-)
SPEC: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/lshw/lshw.spec SRPM: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/lshw/lshw-B.02.11-3.fc7.src.rpm
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From dtimms@iinet.net.au 2007-08-06 07:16 EST ------- One concern as I look through this in detail: is the included clipart patent / copyright free. That is: is it developed by the lshw project, or used with an appropriate open license for fedora - the ones I noticed were AMD, Apple, bluetooth, PowerPC, USB. I am not a licensing person, so I think we need to find the history of these images, and determine if they are consider restricted content within the Fedora {US based} world.
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From lyonel@ezix.org 2007-08-06 08:29 EST ------- All the cliparts except the Intel logo were created from scratch using Inkscape and are released under GPLv2 (cf. the tags in SVG files). The Intel logo was converted from the official Intel EPS.
hope that helps...
(In reply to comment #45)
One concern as I look through this in detail: is the included clipart patent / copyright free. That is: is it developed by the lshw project, or used with an appropriate open license for fedora - the ones I noticed were AMD, Apple, bluetooth, PowerPC, USB. I am not a licensing person, so I think we need to find the history of these images, and determine if they are consider restricted content within the Fedora {US based} world.
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
terjeros@phys.ntnu.no changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE
------- Additional Comments From terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2007-08-06 11:20 EST -------
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 251019 ***
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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591
------- Additional Comments From terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2007-08-06 11:24 EST ------- Closing as dup to change reporter.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla