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-openchrome - Driver for VIA IGPs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=338361 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis| | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-11-01 18:50 EST ------- OK, I'm back from vacation and caught up with work and such. > There's no point. The XvMC sublibraries are loadables, they're only ever used > with dlopen(). I guess you and spot get to duke it out, then: (#fedora-devel) [13:06] <tibbs> Is there any situation where you don't want to run ldconfig after putting a library into /usr/lib? [13:06] <spot> its not a shared library? :) [13:07] <tibbs> lib*XvMC.so.* [13:07] <spot> tibbs: not for that specific situation, no. [13:08] <tibbs> spot: No to running ldconfig? Or no to not running ldconfig? [13:08] <spot> yes. run ldconfig. I guess if they're only ever dlopened then they don't even need to live under /usr/lib. But it's perhaps best not to hang this package up on restructuring where X puts its dlopened libraries, and frankly I'm nothing resembling an expert with X drivers so I'll go along with ajax here. If this proves to be an incorrect decision then the fix will be trivial. * source files match upstream: 42d50f33ce1d6c18045af3d573e718cc70f042c4ef24a1a54ffb49c21b649e63 xf86-video-openchrome-0.2.900.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * 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 has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: xorg-x11-drv-openchrome-0.2.900-6.fc8.x86_64.rpm libchromeXvMC.so.1()(64bit) libchromeXvMCPro.so.1()(64bit) openchrome_drv.so()(64bit) xorg-x11-drv-openchrome = 0.2.900-6.fc8 = libchromeXvMC.so.1()(64bit) libchromeXvMCPro.so.1()(64bit) libdrm.so.2()(64bit) xorg-x11-server-Xorg xorg-x11-drv-openchrome-devel-0.2.900-6.fc8.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-drv-openchrome-devel = 0.2.900-6.fc8 = libchromeXvMC.so.1()(64bit) libchromeXvMCPro.so.1()(64bit) xorg-x11-drv-openchrome = 0.2.900-6.fc8 * Not possible to test this at rpmbuild time, and I haven't the appropriate hardware to test. ? shared libraries are added to the regular linker path, but they're "special" and so there's no need for an ldconfig run. * unversioned .so files are in the -devel package. * 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; I'll sponsor you. -- 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