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: system-config-display https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226456 ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2007-03-23 23:00 EST ------- >I _really_ want to not own this package. :) Perhaps it's worth mailing the maintainers list and asking if anyone is interested? >The vast majority of the bugs against s-c-d are about dualhead sucking. There's >really no good way to fix that short of RANDR 1.2 support in Xorg, so I've been >trying to focus on that first. Yeah. Might be worth making a "Dual head support is bad now until xrandr 1.2" bug and closing a bunch of them as dups against that one? (I'm really looking forward to xrandr 1.2. ;) > I certainly wouldn't object if people wanted to help, but thus far no one has. Yeah. ;( >> All those should be mode 644? > >Oh probably, but since they're 0644 in the upstream source, something must be >making them executable. No harm though, just added #! lines upstream too. Well, are they scripts that can be run by themselves? If not, it would make more sense to not have the #! and make them mode 644. >> g) >> W: system-config-display prereq-use hicolor-icon-theme >> >> Should this be "Requires(postun)" and "Requires(post)" > >I think it's just Requires:, since h-i-t should exist to own the directories, >but if it doesn't, then when we remove the package we should check if the icon >dir exists before trying to update the icon cache. > >Changed to Requires and added the check, but I'm still not sure about this. Looks like it shouldn't be anything at all... http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#head-7103f6c38d1b5735e8477bdd569ad73ea2c49bda says: "Note that no dependencies should be added for this. If gtk-update-icon-cache is not available, there's nothing that would be needing the cache update. Not adding the dependency on gtk-update-icon-cache (ie. gtk2 >= 2.6.0) makes it easier to use the package (or the same specfile) on systems where it's not available nor needed, such as older distro versions or (very) trimmed down installations." -- 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@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review