[Bug 775] New: Review request: xorg-x11-drv-psb - Intel GMA500 (Poulsbo) video driver (and associated packages)

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=775 Summary: Review request: xorg-x11-drv-psb - Intel GMA500 (Poulsbo) video driver (and associated packages) Product: Package Reviews Version: Current Platform: All OS/Version: GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: Review Request AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org ReportedBy: adamwill(a)shaw.ca CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Blocks: 2 Estimated Hours: 0.0 Requesting a review for xorg-x11-drv-psb and several associated packages. This is a driver for the Intel GMA 500 graphics chipset. The associated packages are all required for the driver to work. This is the same driver I have been publishing for a while on my blog at http://www.happyassassin.net/ . SRPMs: http://adamwill.fedorapeople.org/poulsbo/src/xorg-x11-drv-psb-0.31.0-8.fc... http://adamwill.fedorapeople.org/poulsbo/src/libdrm-poulsbo-2.3.0-7.fc11.... http://adamwill.fedorapeople.org/poulsbo/src/psb-firmware-0.30-2.fc11.src... http://adamwill.fedorapeople.org/poulsbo/src/psb-kmod-4.41.1-5.fc11.src.rpm http://adamwill.fedorapeople.org/poulsbo/src/xpsb-glx-0.18-3.fc11.src.rpm SPECs: http://www.happyassassin.net/extras/xorg-x11-drv-psb.spec http://www.happyassassin.net/extras/libdrm-poulsbo.spec http://www.happyassassin.net/extras/psb-firmware.spec http://www.happyassassin.net/extras/psb-kmod.spec http://www.happyassassin.net/extras/xpsb-glx.spec The driver needs to go in RPM Fusion due to licensing issues. The driver itself, the modified libdrm it requires (libdrm-poulsbo) and the kernel module it requires (psb-kmod) are open source. However, the driver is entirely non-functional without the proprietary (but redistributable) packages psb-firmware and xpsb-glx. I believe therefore that psb-firmware and xpsb-glx should go in rpmfusion-nonfree. I'm not sure if the other packages should go in rpmfusion-free or rpmfusion-nonfree. Since the driver has to contain explicit Requires: for the firmware and xpsb-glx packages, I guess it should go in nonfree, since dependencies from free to nonfree are probably not desirable. Notes: this driver is the one from Ubuntu's custom edition that comes pre-installed on Dell netbooks. libdrm-poulsbo is a customized build of libdrm which is required (the X driver and kernel module won't build against a stock libdrm). It is packaged to co-exist with the official libdrm package, but when libdrm-poulsbo is installed, anything which is just linked against libdrm.so will be using this customized version. In practice, it works well, I've been running my own Poulsbo system with this setup for quite a while now. psb-kmod is the kernel module (it's needed for the driver to work at all). psb-firmware is some firmware which is required for the driver to work. xpsb-glx contains a pre-built X.org library which is required for the driver to work, a pre-built DRI library which is required for 3D acceleration to work, and a pre-built module for 2D video playback acceleration via libva (I intend to submit a libva package to Fedora main repos some time soon). All of these are only available in pre-built form. rpmlint notes: akmod-psb.i586: E: devel-dependency libdrm-poulsbo-devel akmod-psb.i586: E: explicit-lib-dependency libdrm-poulsbo-devel akmod-psb.i586: W: no-documentation the dependency is correct; the module needs libdrm-poulsbo-devel to be present to build, so the akmod package must obviously require it. no-documentation - I think this is normal for a kmod package? If not, please advise how to add docs. libdrm-poulsbo.i586: E: explicit-lib-dependency libdrm libdrm-poulsbo.i586: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/ld.so.conf.d/psb.conf the explicit lib dependency is intended; the main libdrm package includes a couple of binary tools, and it's better to have libdrm-poulsbo require it rather than have it also ship the tools and conflict with it. The config file is also intended: there's no reason an end user should modify this file. psb-firmware.i586: E: no-binary psb-firmware.i586: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/psb-firmware-0.30/COPYING it's just a firmware file. The package is arched because I believe the firmware to be arch specific, not that there's ever going to be a Poulsbo graphics chip in anything but an i586 system. I don't believe it's good practice to do a character set conversion on a license file. xorg-x11-drv-psb.i586: E: explicit-lib-dependency libdrm-poulsbo xorg-x11-drv-psb.i586: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/modprobe.d/poulsbo.conf xorg-x11-drv-psb.i586: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/psb xorg-x11-drv-psb.i586: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/psb $name xorg-x11-drv-psb.i586: W: incoherent-init-script-name psb ('xorg-x11-drv-psb', 'xorg-x11-drv-psbd') the explicit lib dep is again intentional: it's the only way to ensure the customized libdrm, not the main one, is used when the driver is installed. the config file not being marked as a config file is intentional: there's no reason for an end user to modify it, it simply causes the module to be loaded automatically when a Poulsbo graphics chip is found. I'm not quite sure what the incoherent-subsys warning means, but the script in question is based directly on the one from the NVIDIA package. Ditto the incoherent-init-script-name warning, I'm following the conventions from the NVIDIA package. This will be my first RPM Fusion package (set), if accepted. However, I am a sponsored packager for Fedora itself, I maintain congruity and gst-mixer there. -- 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.