[Bug 251019] Review Request: lshw - Hardware lister

[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: lshw - Hardware lister


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=251019





------- Additional Comments From terjeros at phys.ntnu.no  2007-08-13 14:50 EST -------
> MUST Items:
>  - emac.svg {artistic view of apple logo} is still included - is it OK to
> include in Fedora ?

Logo? It's a drawing of a computer monitor, must be ok.


> .? If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
> architecture - :
>  - I tried only on i386{i686/athlon}
>  - no excludearchs listed.
>  - have you tested on x86_64 or mac ?

Lyonel on ppc, I have tested x86_64, ok.

> .x At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT):
>  - the command is: %{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}, which is not standard, why ?
>
>.x must have a %clean section, containing rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT):
> - %{__rm} -rf %{buildroot} differs from this requirement.

Not fixed, see next issue.
  
>.? Each package must consistently use macros:
>  - no new macros are defined.
>  - %{x} are actually %{__X}, again, why ?

I read this as not to mix $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}, sed and %{__sed}.
I prefer to use the macro versions, hence rm -rf is %{__rm} -rf.
Anyway, this is pedantic.


> ? - COPYING is included in both lshw and lshw-gui. However, lshw-gui Requires 
> lshw, so the COPYING is guaranteed to be installed already. I don't know if
> that is normal, or whether it could / should be removed.

Requires is not enough, lshw-gui could e.g have a BSD license.

  
> .?  The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
> architectures:
>  - only tested on i386 {athlon}

Tested on i386, ppc and x86_64.


> Personally, I think console helper should be saying ~"this program performs
> better when run with root privileges", and give the normal user a chance to ~run
> unprivileged". This makes the app at least somewhat useful if you do not have
> root rights on the system. This might also means not placing in /usr/sbin ?

This not make sense to me.


> I also suggest: that even though lshw includes a copy of hw data, that any such
> files included by fedora hwdata should not be packaged. This has the
advantages of:
> - removes any confusion / discrepancy that would otherwise occur if the result
> of other fedora hardware tools is compared to lshw that included different
> hwdata files.
> - shouldn't require updates to lshw when only hw data has been updated.

Until hwdata is more frequently updated the way lshw is doing this now
is most sane, if things changes hwdata info in lshw can be removed.



-- 
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.