[Bug 197981] Review Request: gkrellm-wifi - Wireless monitor plugin for the GNU Krell Monitors

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: gkrellm-wifi - Wireless monitor plugin for the GNU Krell Monitors


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197981





------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl  2006-07-17 07:58 EST -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> Blockers:
> - Tarball is not upstream one, sha1sums:
>   package:  52d13482f7ea71ca0f5613ac5209cbe7d8385f42
>   upstream: 45888e68822189bedb11e3d77e6d5e8eacb6d507
>   There are also substantial differences in their contents.

Your right, strange, I took the tarbal straight from the core SRPM, it seems the
 one in core is newer / completer then the upstream one. I've gone back to a
pristine upstream tarbal, with the changes found in the core package in a patch.
I've also mailed upstream for an explanation on the 2 different 0.9.12 versions.

> - Missing dependency on gkrellm.
> - Add back "ExcludeArch: s390 s390x" like it was kind of in the FC package
>   for benefit of folks who rebuild FE packages for example for RHEL.
Both fixed

> - A patch/sed one liner replacing unwanted stuff in CFLAGS with $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
>   could be easier to maintain than copy-pasting all flags between Makefile
>   and the specfile.

I'm used to doing things like this for non autotooled packages, so I'm keeping
it this way.

New version here:
Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/gkrellm-wifi.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/gkrellm-wifi-0.9.12-2.src.rpm

Changes:
* Mon Jul 17 2006 Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl> 0.9.12-2
- Use pristine upstream source and put changes found in the Core package
  tarbal in a patch
- Require gkrellm >= 2.2, gkrellm < 3
- Add ExcludeArch: s390 s390x



-- 
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.