[Bug 645857] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-omapfb - Xorg X11 omap frame buffer driver

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645857

Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |pbrobinson at gmail.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> 2010-10-23 11:47:43 EDT ---
It builds on primary arches if you remove the exlusive arch flag but as its
only of use on ARM I don't see the point (maybe we need to get package
guidelines to reflect that).

Looks mostly OK. The first one here seems to be that some X drivers do and
others don't. I'm not sure its a major issue. I'm not sure if the later one is
due to being grabbed from GIT (although it has worked fine in other instances). 
- license file included in package
- upstream sources match sources in the srpm

+ rpmlint output

$ rpmlint xorg-x11-drv-omapfb-0.1.1-1*
xorg-x11-drv-omapfb.armv5tel: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) omap -> map, o
map, Omar
xorg-x11-drv-omapfb.armv5tel: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US omap ->
map, o map, Omar
xorg-x11-drv-omapfb.armv5tel: W: no-documentation
xorg-x11-drv-omapfb.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) omap -> map, o map,
Omar
xorg-x11-drv-omapfb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US omap -> map, o
map, Omar
xorg-x11-drv-omapfb.src:77: W: macro-in-comment %{_mandir}
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.

+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license
- license file included in package
+ latest version packaged

+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
- upstream sources match sources in the srpm

md5sum xf86-video-omapfb-0.1.1.tar.gz 
f3699f5644bec0307071ffeb88f51921  xf86-video-omapfb-0.1.1.tar.gz
md5sum ../rpmbuild/SOURCES/xf86-video-omapfb-0.1.1.tar.gz 
effdaf4ef203ab071473c2d71b6e59ef 
../rpmbuild/SOURCES/xf86-video-omapfb-0.1.1.tar.gz

+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
  tested using koji scratch build
  http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=32294
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun+ does not use Prefix: /usr
n/a package owns all directories it creates
n/a no duplicate files in %files
+ Package perserves timestamps on install
+ Permissions on files must be set properly 
+ %defattr line
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package runtime 
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a devel must require the fully versioned base
+ packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8

Optional:

+ if there is no license file, packager should query upstream to include it
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock/koji
+ the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
n/a review should test the package functions as described
+ scriptlets should be sane
n/a non -devel packages should require fully versioned base
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin
n/a Package should have man files

-- 
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.