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-ivtv - Xorg X11 ivtv video driver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=346161 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-10-23 01:36 EST ------- This is a basic xorg driver; nothing fancy. rpmlint is silent and everything looks good. I have the firmware in a local repo so that this will install properly for me, but I don't have the hardware to test this on. You might want to flesh out the description just a little bit if possible. Specifically, it would be nice to know which boards are supported. It looks like it only works with the PVR350; I'm not sure that the other boards have a framebuffer or even do any output. * source files match upstream: e98a2ed67fea25ab7f94eecb5a53a2d3a3c42de93557d77d774fa18d311c807a xf86-video-ivtv-1.0.0.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. ? description is OK (might be nice to include a little more info) * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: ivtv_drv.so()(64bit) xorg-x11-drv-ivtv = 1.0.0-1.fc8 = ivtv-firmware xorg-x11-server-Xorg >= 1.3.0.0-6 * %check is not present; I've no way to test this package. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * 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 static libraries. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review