[Bug 226577] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-apm

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun May 6 03:24:54 UTC 2007


Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-apm


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226577


bugzilla at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |medium
           Priority|normal                      |medium

tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tibbs at math.uh.edu




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-05-05 23:24 EST -------
Well, this the first driver (alphabetically) which will build on x86_64, so I
figured I'd take a look.

A cursory inspection only turns up two issues:

W: xorg-x11-drv-apm invalid-license MIT/X11
  which is kind of an odd way to state it, but I guess it's not incorrect.

The other issue is ownership of /usr/lib64/xorg/modules and
/usr/lib64/xorg/modules/drivers.  I thought there was a discussion at Fudcon
about this between you and spot, but I paid only enough attention to look out
for airborne furniture.

Minor stuff:

%define cvsdate xxxxxxx
  Not used in this spec, and aren't these things in git anyway?

Jesse stuck in a weird changelog line:
  * Wed Jul 12 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> - sh: line 0: fg: no job
control
Looks like a script took a bit of a dump there.

Umm, I guess that's about it.  Needless to say, I have absolutely no way to test
this; I'm not even sure what "apm" means in the context of video.

-- 
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.




More information about the package-review mailing list