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: xf86-video-nouveau - X.org nouveau driver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433738 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-02-22 18:51 EST ------- I have to admit that my git knowledge is a bit shallow, but I'm a bit confused as to how you know what git revision to checkout to generate the tarball when you don't have the tarball from which to extract the git revision. Also, I don't think tare working quite properly; when the package is built, you can't directly access %{tarfile} and even though it's a build dependency, git-core isn't installed in the buildroot when the srpm is built. So the end the package gets a VR of just 0.0.10-0.20080221git.fc9 and you get this in the build log: sh: git-get-tar-commit-id: command not found bzip2: Can't open input file xf86-video-nouveau-0.0.10-20080221.tar.bz2: No such file or directory. For simplicity, I'd just suggest hardcoding the git_version, or even just dropping it from the release (it's in no way mandatory) and just sticking it in the instructional comments. Once I extracted the commit-id from the tarball manually, I was able to follow the comments in the spec to recreate the archive and verify that it matched, although your instructions are missing a "cd xf86-video-nouveau". Now, there are some new rpmlint complaints: xorg-x11-drv-nouveau.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.0.10-1 1:0.0.10-0.20080221git.fc9 See below; basically you want your changelog entry to match the actual EVR you're using, although many folks skip the epoch. xorg-x11-drv-nouveau-debuginfo.x86_64: W: filename-too-long-for-joliet xorg-x11-drv-nouveau-debuginfo-0.0.10-0.20080221git.fc9.x86_64.rpm I guess this is unavoidable. Other minor quibbles: Best to start your release at "1.whatever" instead of "0.whatever" to distinguish it from the prerelease case. (Prereleases count up from 0.1, releases and post-release snapshots count up from 1.) I don't quite understand the dependency on hwdata, since this package doesn't install anything into /usr/share/hwdata. Abbreviated checklist: * source files match upstream (verified by manual untar/diff) X doesn't quite meet the versioning guidelines (start post-release snapshots from release 1.x, please) * specfile is properly named and uses macros consistently. X The git_version stuff seems somewhat convoluted and seems to not actually work. * 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. X license text not included in package. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint has valid complaints. ? final provides and requires are sane: nouveau_drv.so()(64bit) xorg-x11-drv-nouveau = 1:0.0.10-0.20080221git.fc9 = ? hwdata kernel-drm-nouveau = 10 xorg-x11-server-Xorg >= 1.3.0.0-6 -- 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