Bug 727199

I'll review (and I'll sponsor you eventually).

Successfully built for F-15, see koji logs:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3246300

However there is a room for the SPEC-file improvement.

1. Please, add a comments on how to reproduce / rebuild tarball you're using. For example, take a look at the following SPEC-file:

http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=flashrom.git;a=blob;f=flashrom.spec;hb=HEAD

2. Parts of the SPEC-file, related to doc-files, should be simplified. Instead of installing doc-files explicitly you may use rpmbuild's internal doc-file processing routines. E.g. instead of

-------------------------------------
%define pkgdocdir %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}
...
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{pkgdocdir}
install -m 0644 COPYING $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{pkgdocdir}
install -m 0644 README $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{pkgdocdir}
...
%dir %{pkgdocdir}/
%doc %{pkgdocdir}/COPYING
%doc %{pkgdocdir}/README
-------------------------------------


you should just write


-------------------------------------
%files
...
%doc COPYING README
-------------------------------------

and rpmbuild will do the rest.

Please, comment/address these issues and I'll continue.

Thanks for your comments. I have tried to address them and updated the spec file and the source RPM in-place on my web, please re-download them.

The current spec file, SRPM and binary RPMs (built on i686 and x86_64 in Fedora 15) pass rpmlint without errors.

REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ rpmlint is silent

work ~: rpmlint ~/Desktop/xorg-x11-drv-displaylink-*
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
work ~: 

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (GPLv2).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3246472

+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.

0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

This package is


APPROVED.


Martin, what's your FAS name?

> APPROVED.

Thanks!

> Martin, what's your FAS name?

It's "mdecky".

Unblocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR - I just sponsored Martin.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: xorg-x11-drv-displaylink
Short Description: X.Org X11 DisplayLink video driver
Owners: mdecky
Branches: f15
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Added f16 since we've branched.

xorg-x11-drv-displaylink-0-1.20110102git.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xorg-x11-drv-displaylink-0-1.20110102git.fc16

xorg-x11-drv-displaylink-0-1.20110102git.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xorg-x11-drv-displaylink-0-1.20110102git.fc15

xorg-x11-drv-displaylink-0-1.20110102git.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository.

Martin: Any chance of this in F-14 too?

(In reply to comment #12)
> Martin: Any chance of this in F-14 too?

Probably not as a Fedora-provided package. AFAIK the latest kernel in F14 is 2.6.35.13-93 which does not contain the udlfb kernel driver which is in turn needed by this X11 driver.

However, you can build a kmod package for udlfb and the X11 driver yourself. Feel free to use these source packages:

http://rpms.decky.cz/f14/srpms/udlfb-20110213-1.fc14.src.rpm
http://rpms.decky.cz/f14/srpms/udlfb-kmod-20110213-1.fc14.src.rpm
http://rpms.decky.cz/srpms/xorg-x11-drv-displaylink-0-1.20110102git.fc15.src.rpm

xorg-x11-drv-displaylink-0-1.20110102git.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.

xorg-x11-drv-displaylink-0-1.20110102git.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.