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: xorg-x11-drv-vermilion - Intel Vermilion driver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240808 kevin@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |kevin@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2007-05-22 14:47 EST ------- Here's a review: OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (MIT) OK - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. ? - Sources match upstream md5sum: OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. See below - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. See below - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. Non blocker. Might ask upstream to include that this is released under the MIT license in the COPYING file instead of that saying it's just a stub file. 2. Non blocker. rpmlint says: W: xorg-x11-drv-vermilion mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 12) Fix if you get a chance. 3. Shouldn't this package "Require: hwdata" ? It puts a file under /usr/share/hwdata/videoaliases/ which hwdata owns. Or does this get pulled in from some dependency of xorg-x11-server-Xorg? 4. Doesn't build on ppc32. I get: gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -I/usr/include/xorg -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -MT vermilion.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/vermilion.Tpo -c vermilion.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/vermilion.o vermilion.c: In function 'VERMILIONKernelOpen': vermilion.c:380: warning: ignoring return value of 'fgets', declared with attribute warn_unused_result vermilion.c:916:2: error: #error VERMILIONReadMemory and VERMILIONWriteMemory only work on little endian make[2]: *** [vermilion.lo] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/xf86-video-vermilion-1.0.0/src' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/xf86-video-vermilion-1.0.0' make: *** [all] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.8790 (%build) Does this hardware exist on ppc? Perhaps ppc/ppc64 should also be excluded? 5. I wasn't yet able to verify the md5 on the sources. Will do that later today once freedesktop is back up. -- 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