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 ------- Additional Comments From ajackson@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-19 13:59 EST ------- Okay, did some cleanup. First, Xorg is built on all arches except s390{,x}, so I flipped the ExclusiveArch at the top of the file to be ExcludeArch. In general I'd prefer to use ExcludeArch, since there's no intrinsic reason for most of X to be arch-specific. I did the same to all the driver packages I could, with the exception of a few that really are arch-specific. There's only ~8 of these, and they're clearly listed at the bottom of the Requires list now, along with a short comment for each explaining why they're %ifarch'd. Removed the Obsoletes: and fixed the License to be MIT. It's just a metapackage, there's really nothing to license, so picking the same license class as the drivers it's meta for seems appropriate. Which leaves us with: % rpmlint xorg-x11-drivers-7.2-2.fc7.src.rpm W: xorg-x11-drivers no-url-tag % rpmlint i686/xorg-x11-drivers-7.2-2.fc7.i686.rpm W: xorg-x11-drivers no-url-tag E: xorg-x11-drivers no-binary W: xorg-x11-drivers no-documentation As above, not having a binary is fine for this package. Removing the URL now generates an rpmlint warning for not having a URL. Eh. I think it's better without one. Also I don't see the point in making a trivial doc payload, given that it'd just be a repeat of the %description. -- 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