Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 1015162
Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-wayland - Xorg wayland driver
Last modified: 2014-05-21 12:56:02 EDT
Spec URL: http://ajax.fedorapeople.org/xorg-x11-drv-wayland/xorg-x11-drv-wayland.spec SRPM URL: http://ajax.fedorapeople.org/xorg-x11-drv-wayland/xorg-x11-drv-wayland-0-0.1.20131003.src.rpm Description: Fallback driver for X-under-wayland Fedora Account System Username: ajax
Wrong srpm url. Right one: http://ajax.fedorapeople.org/xorg-x11-drv-wayland/xorg-x11-drv-wayland-0-0.1.20131003.fc20.src.rpm Note that this requires a fairly new xorg-x11-server-devel to build; I've not marked the exact version yet, but what's currently in F20 should be sufficient.
Few remarks: * Remove %clean section, and "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" in the %install section - I doubt we're targeting pre-F12/pre-RHEL7 systems. * Remove "%defattr(-,root,root,-)" in the %files section - no longer needed (since RHEL5/Fedora Core 6). * You may use "autoreconf -ivf" instead of "autoreconf -v --install || exit 1" * The following files should be marked as %doc in the %file section - COPYING, README.
Koji scratchbuild for Rawhide: * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6026858
REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is almost silent Auriga ~: rpmlint ~/Desktop/xorg-x11-drv-wayland-* xorg-x11-drv-wayland.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-0.1git20131003 ['0-0.1.20131003.fc21', '0-0.1.20131003'] ^^^ please fix that before uploading xorg-x11-drv-wayland.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Auriga ~: + 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 (MIT). - The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, MUST be marked in %doc. See my notes above. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji link above. + 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 does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + 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 C/C++ 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) in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. 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. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Please address/comment my notes below and I'll finish this.
Ping, Adam!
Ping again! What's the status of this ticket?
Never happening, Xwayland is its own DDX now.