Bug 1000970
| Summary: | Review Request: samsung-tools - Tools for Samsung laptops | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Christopher Meng <i> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | i, notting, rc040203 |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2013-11-10 08:39:51 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Christopher Meng
2013-08-26 08:49:07 UTC
Why is this an arch'ed package? I can't spot anything arch specific inside. (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #1) > Why is this an arch'ed package? I can't spot anything arch specific inside. There are files installed to %{_libdir}/pm-utils/ (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #2) > (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #1) > > Why is this an arch'ed package? I can't spot anything arch specific inside. > > There are files installed to %{_libdir}/pm-utils/ This is just a side-effect of you not build noarched + an upstream bug. (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #3) > (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #2) > > (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #1) > > > Why is this an arch'ed package? I can't spot anything arch specific inside. > > > > There are files installed to %{_libdir}/pm-utils/ > > This is just a side-effect of you not build noarched + an upstream bug. Can I put files to /usr/lib/pm-utils on x86_64? If so I will update my package. No full review, just drive-by comments: > License: GPLv2+ Please verify. Consulting the help of the fedora-review tool may be an idea. File COPYING is GPLv3. README says "Released under GPLv3 terms". Several Python source files say GPLv3 "or later". > Requires(post): systemd Systemd's RPM macros are included in the systemd package, so "BuildRequires: systemd" will be needed. > LC_ALL=en_US.UTF-8 make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} > > %ifarch x86_64 > mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_libdir} > mv %{buildroot}%{_prefix}/lib/pm-utils %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/pm-utils > %endif x86_64 is not the only arch where %_libdir is /usr/lib64. The package would fail to build for those archs. Here it failed even for F19 and Rawhide, but with %find_lang not finding anything. Has it been tested/built at all? > Can I put files to /usr/lib/pm-utils on x86_64? If you look up pm-utils.x86_64 at koji or its spec file, http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/pm-utils.git/plain/pm-utils.spec what do you find? > %{_datadir}/applications/%{name}-preferences.desktop https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage > %exclude %{_sysconfdir}/xdg/autostart/%{name}-session-service.desktop There is no comment here? Why is the file excluded? Ping? Two months have passed without the package submitter having provided feedback on comments. Christopher, are you still interested submitting this package or can this be closed? Another week has past without response from the submitter. I am going to close this review, due to "non responsive submitter" LOL. I just want to update this one. Sorry, I decide to close this review request as this package can't be used in Fedora as missing dependency of vbetool, and seems that from f13 vbetool is useless and as a result it's deprecated now. |