Hide Forgot
Spec URL: http://rpms.decky.cz/specs/xorg-x11-drv-displaylink.spec SRPM URL: http://rpms.decky.cz/srpms/xorg-x11-drv-displaylink-0-1.20110102git.fc15.src.rpm Description: X.Org X11 DisplayLink video driver This is a git snapshot of the latest X.Org DisplayLink driver (using udlfb in the current Linux kernel) from http://git.plugable.com/gitphp/index.php?p=xf-video-udlfb The spec file is based on the spec file from xorg-x11-drv-fbdev.
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.