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@xxxxxxxx 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 Stripping lshw from its DB would mean that we force it to use outdated data (10 April 2007 on my machine).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 ? -- 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