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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=251019 ------- Additional Comments From terjeros@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-08-14 13:05 EST ------- > === Issues === > 1. I am not sure which license is used by the program. The Copying file mentions > the GPLv2 or later clauses,which would mean that the correct tag is GPLv2+. > However I might misinterpretate it, so Lyonel, please assist and let us know > what is the intended licensing scheme. GPLv2 is correct, ref: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591#c42 > 2. The source URL included was not accesible, the site seemed to be down at the > moment of the review > 3. The file named "Changes" references a later version of the source. As the > site for upstream was not accessible, I could not check That is a known issue, ref: comment #3 over. > 4. I will verify this a bit later. > 5. Please use separate files for the pam and desktop files. Creating them in the > spec is technically OK, but is prone to errors, while using separate files > allows better time/version/MD5 checking Fixed. > 6. (pedantic, feel free to ignore): Please verify if "make" and "make gui" are > both needed. I cannot test now, but at the first glance I think that "make gui" > is enough, it will build everything. You are right, fixed. Updated version: SPEC: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/lshw/lshw.spec SRPM: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/lshw/lshw-B.02.11.01-3.fc7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review