[Bug 338361] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-openchrome - Driver for VIA IGPs

[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 report.

Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-openchrome - Driver for VIA IGPs


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=338361


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|177841                      |
              nThis|                            |
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  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.