Bug 107

first let me say thx for driving this forward. I guess a lot of people will be glad if we start shipping betas

But there is one thing I'd like to know: How will this interact with the stock drivers in times when the beta becomes final and no new beta is yet available?

A example might help to better outline what I'd like to know (version numbers made up). 

- let's first assume xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-123.3 and xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-beta-124.1 are in the repo.

- let' further assume the nvidia version 124.3 becomes the new "stable" driver a few weeks later. Will xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-124.3-1 obsolete xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-beta-124.1-1? What happens to the beta kmods? Will yum remove them automatically (I think so, but would be nice to check that before the packages enter the repo)?

- let's further assume that nvidia a few weeks later releases a new beta 125.1; will those users that installed xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-beta-124.1 earlier get xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-beta-125.1 automatically installed (note, I'm not even sure if we want that or not; I currently tend a bit to "we want that")
 

What is behind your question is Obsoletes/Provides of the kmod.

The aim of Obsoletes/Provides will be to remove xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-beta. Once done, there will be no more nvidia-beta-kmod-common. Thus it will add the related kmod for removal.
(all been done in the same yum transaction).

But I would say, this is the old scheme, we can use Obsoletes/Provides or not.
For now, users that will want the beta serie will need to uninstall the previous and re-install the new serie.

Once that said we could leave this package in testing for its whole life. 
(But IMO it could also land into the main repositories).

+ 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...

Package CVS request
======================
Package Name: xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-beta
Short Description: NVIDIA's beta proprietary display driver for NVIDIA graphic
cards
Owners: kwizart firewing1
Branches: devel F-9 F-8
InitialCC:
----------------------
License tag: nonfree

As per discussions on IRC; livna-config-display requirement will be added upon import.

APPROVED

imported