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: xorg-x11-drivers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226573 fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |ajackson@xxxxxxxxxx CC| |fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-03 17:58 EST ------- * I understand the reasons for this package, but it looks like a maintaince nightmare as somebody needs to make sure this package is updated each time new drivers get added to the tree. That sucks :-/ -- for example currently there are at least xorg-x11-drv-amd and xorg-x11-drv-tek4957 available on i386, but not requires by this (I don't think that's on purpose). Suggestions to improve it (just for discussion, I'm unsure what the proper solution is): ship a script that generates the template for the specfile from cvs or "yum list" automatically. Or use something similar to the (ugly)trick that is used in the kmod packages to run a script and include it's output in the spec file instead of hardcoding the output in the spec -- Then a simple rebuild should do everything correctly. BTW, in case we stick to the current solution: the script mentioned in the comment would actually be more useful if one would know what what "xorg-all-drivers.txt" is or how it can be generated * Quoting the spec {{{ # This should match the list of architectures we build the Xorg server for. # Note the lack of s390{,x}. ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 ia64 ppc ppc64 alpha sparc sparc64 }}} and all those {{{ %ifarch foo Requires: bar %endif }}} It IMHO would me wiser if we'd could use a ExcludeArch and ifnarch those packages and archs where we now those drivers don't exisit. But that's just my opinion and a detail and probably not worth the work... * rpmlint rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-drivers-7.1-3.i386.rpm W: xorg-x11-drivers invalid-license MIT/X11 -> MIT would be correct; But I fail what precisely is MIT licensed here... E: xorg-x11-drivers obsolete-not-provided xorg-x11 -> Why is that obsolete there in any case? E: xorg-x11-drivers no-binary - acceptable in this case W: xorg-x11-drivers no-documentation - might be a good idea to just create a small README that exaplains the purpose of this package (any maybe what might happen if you remove it) rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-drivers-7.1-3.src.rpm W: xorg-x11-drivers invalid-license MIT/X11 -> see above W: xorg-x11-drivers unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xorg-x11 -> if the obsoletes needs to stay better provide one with a version number -- that way we might be able to create a package with that name n the future * MISC: * "URL: http://www.redhat.com";, I don't think that's helpful (might even be confusing), so maybe it should be removed * dist-tags are no must, but might be nice to use * Besides the stuff outlines above: package meets naming and packaging guidelines. specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. BuildRequires are proper. no shared libraries are present. package is not relocatable. no duplicates in %files. file permissions are appropriate. %clean is present. %check is present and all tests pass: (include the summary from the test suite, if any) no scriptlets present. code, not content. documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. no headers. no pkgconfig files. no libtool .la droppings. not a GUI app. not a web app. no open bugs -- 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