Bug 2548763
| Summary: | Review Request: slideshow-lock - Idle slideshow screensaver for GNOME on Wayland that locks on input | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | TrenSoft Team <r43993twq> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
| Status: | NEW --- | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora, package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | --- | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | Type: | --- | |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 177841 | ||
|
Description
TrenSoft Team
2026-10-09 18:14:58 UTC
Correction to the description: the fedora-review template has 73 checklist items (38 [x], 1 [!], 34 [ ]), not 75/39/1/35. The higher numbers wrongly included the two legend lines at the top of review.txt. Updated to 1.0.10 Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/trensoft/slideshow-lock/srpm-builds/11103282/slideshow-lock.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/trensoft/slideshow-lock/srpm-builds/11103282/slideshow-lock-1.0.10-1.src.rpm Changes since 1.0.9-1: the settings window gets a Donate button next to Preview, loses the main menu with the About entry, and shows "1.0.10 by TrenSoft" at the bottom right; the package now has "Requires: gnome-shell". Build of version 1.0.10-1 in COPR (x86_64), from the tag v1.0.10 (commit f3cd41c): build 11103282 succeeded on fedora-43, fedora-44, fedora-rawhide and epel-10, all four in this one build. The spec at the Spec URL is identical (same sha256, a4027a35...) to packaging/fedora/slideshow-lock.spec at the tag. The SHA256 of Source0 in the SRPM equals the upstream tarball (f4f1338f...), as fedora-review checked. rpmlint: - COPR ran rpmlint 2.8.0 with the Fedora configuration on the built noarch RPM and the SRPM: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, the same on fedora-43, fedora-44 and fedora-rawhide. COPR wrote no rpmlint output for epel-10. - We also ran rpmlint ourselves: rpmlint 2.7.0 with the rawhide Fedora configuration files (rpmlint 2.10.0-9.fc46 and rpmlint-fedora-license-data 1.76-1.fc46, spell checking en_US on) on the spec, the SRPM from the Spec URL and the fedora-rawhide noarch RPM of the build: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered ("2 packages and 1 specfiles checked"). - The 7 filtered messages are the Fedora configuration's own filters; the SRPM has no rpmlintrc. With those filters switched off the same run prints exactly these 7 and nothing else: not-standard-release-extension (1), no-packager-tag (2), no-group-tag (2), no-buildroot-tag (2). They only say that the spec has no Packager, Group or BuildRoot tag, which the Fedora guidelines do not want, and that the SRPM from the srpm-builds directory has the release "1" without a dist tag (the spec has %{?dist}; COPR's SRPM step defines none). fedora-review: - fedora-review 0.12.0 ran in COPR in "--prebuilt" mode only (no rebuild in mock) on fedora-43, fedora-44 and fedora-rawhide (fedora-review/review.txt in each chroot directory of build 11103282; none for epel-10). We did not run fedora-review ourselves. - Its template has 74 checklist items (counted with the pattern "^\[.\]:" so that the two legend lines are not counted): 39 marked [x], 1 marked [!] (the reminder that the reviewer should test the build in mock) and 34 marked [ ] (manual review needed, still open). There is no [-] and no [?]. The three chroots give the same numbers. - Compared with 1.0.9 (73 items: 38 / 1 / 34): one [x] item is new, "systemd_user_post is invoked in %post and systemd_user_preun in %preun", which was the one entry under "Issues" for 1.0.9; there is no "Issues" list now. - We have not completed the manual items and we are not claiming a clean fedora-review. Holy cow, the comments. This feels like reading a five-page manual on how to operate a screwdriver.
Anyway:
> %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}
> %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/pictures
> %{_datadir}/%{name}/pictures/*
Why? Using "%{_datadir}/%{name}" will make the package own the directory, along with all its contents.
Thanks, you are right: `%{_datadir}/%{name}` alone owns the directory and everything in it, so the three lines were redundant. Fixed in 1.0.10-2, which also trims the spec comments to the few that explain a non-obvious choice. The file list of the RPM (`rpm -qpl`) is unchanged.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/trensoft/slideshow-lock/srpm-builds/11173735/slideshow-lock.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/trensoft/slideshow-lock/srpm-builds/11173735/slideshow-lock-1.0.10-2.src.rpm
|