[Bug 107] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-beta - NVIDIA's beta proprietary display driver for NVIDIA graphic cards

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107


Stewart Adam <s.adam at diffingo.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED




--- Comment #3 from Stewart Adam <s.adam at diffingo.com>  2008-11-06 16:39:25 ---
+ source files match upstream
+ package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
+ dist tag is present.
+ build root is correct.
+ license field matches the actual license.
+ license text included in package.
+ latest version is being packaged.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ compiler flags are appropriate.
+ %clean is present.
+ package builds properly.
+ package installs properly.
+ debuginfo package looks complete.
- rpmlint is silent.
--> Lots of messages, here are the ones that need fixing:
xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-beta.src: E: description-line-too-long hardware accelerated
rendering with NVIDIA chipsets NV40 (GeForce6 series) and newer.
xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-beta.src: W: strange-permission filter-requires.sh 0775
xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-beta.src: W: strange-permission nvidia-beta-config-display
0775
xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-beta.src: W: strange-permission nvidia-beta-README.Fedora
0775
xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-beta.src: W: strange-permission nvidia-beta-init 0775
xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-beta-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This
package provides the development files of the xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-beta package,
- final provides and requires are sane:
--> We're providing libGL.so.1 and libGLcore.so.1 - see bug 122
--> Main package must "Require: livna-config-display >= 0.0.22" so that the
initscripts work properly
--> -devel package should require -libs package - see bug 122
+ owns the directories it creates.
+ doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ code, not content.
+ documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
+ %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
+ headers are in a -devel subpackage.
+ no pkgconfig files.
+ no libtool .la droppings.
+ desktop files valid and installed properly.

Same comment as in bug 122 about the FreshRPMs upgrade path...


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.