Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 189268
Review Request: xscreensaver
Last modified: 2013-01-09 22:42:30 EST
Spec URL: http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/xscreensaver.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SRPMS/xscreensaver-22.214.171.124-3.src.rpm
XScreenSaver is the standard screen saver collection shipped on most Linux and Unix systems running the X11 Window System. More than 200 display modes are included in this package.
On X11 systems, XScreenSaver is two things: it is both a large collection of screen savers; and it is also the framework for blanking and locking the screen.
FC5 core has two X window locking system, gnome-screensaver and xscreensaver,
and fedora core now prefers to use gnome-screensaver because it has some new
mechanism such as udev and so on( I remember that this topic is argued on
mailing list, but I forgot when and where) .
So, Ray Strode, the current XScreenSaver maintainer (in core) has had a plan to
move xscreensaver to Extras and has looked for a new maintainer ( in Extras ).
I have already suggested to him that I take over the maintainership from him (by
Adding Jamie, so he can give his input on the packages if he wants to.
So my first thought is 5.0 isn't released yet, and Jamie has this on his website:
"I encourage you to try it out and report any
bugs that you find, but please don't distribute it."
You may want to hold off on pushing it. On the other hand, this is rawhide
we're talking about, so maybe it would be better to get it out sooner, so we get
more testing. I would ask Jamie and see what he thinks.
Have you run rpmlint on the package? If so, would you mind attaching the output
of it here?
I see this in the build log:
checking for bc... no
configure: WARNING: Your system doesn't have "bc", which has been a standard
part of Unix since the 1970s. Come back when your vendor
has grown a clue.
We should investigate what the ramifications are, or just add a BuildReq on bc.
Created attachment 127992 [details]
First, rpmlint log for rpms compiled under development environment.
(In reply to comment #5)
> checking for bc... no
> configure: WARNING: Your system doesn't have "bc", which has been a standard
> part of Unix since the 1970s. Come back when your vendor
> has grown a clue.
I removed the necessity of bc by adding Patch268:
xscreensaver-5.00a9-remove-bc.patch (this should work with bash configure) .....
bc is only used in configure and I can't understand the necessity of bc any more
because the usage of bc in configure can be substituded with expr in coreutils.
Without this patch, configure stops at this line if not having bc.
Now I add some patches which add some enhanced function for my TASTE or INTEREST
- re-blank of re-lock window when restarting
- cycle screen hack when locked and middle button of mouse is pressed
- show hack number on xscreensaver-demo
- add the selection option of quad mode
- add a option to show hacks on gnome 2 background
and add some fixes which I think is proper:
- kill hack when window size is too small (cause floating point exception)
- kill hack on xscreensaver-demo window before blanking screen by pushing
a button on xscreensaver-demo (otherwise, it sometimes leaves zombie process...
of which the reason I don't know)
I don't know whether Jamie accepts these.
Umm... I didn't the button "ASSIGNED"...
Since you are going to maintain the package, you're free, of course, to add
changes that match your taste and interests. In general, you should try to get
as many patches as you can that are suitable for upstream, upstream, though.
It reduces the pain of maintaining the package and it means a wider audience of
people benefit from your changes.
Thanks for the rpmlint output in attachment 127992 [details].
Can you fix the problems with E: by them? Also, can you look at the ones with W:
by them and see if fixing them makes sense? If you have any questions feel free
Created attachment 128002 [details]
rpmlint log for xscreensaver-126.96.36.199-4
bc warning is erased.
Come on, guys. What part of "please do not distribute this" was unclear?
There will be a real release in a month or two.
Please do not distribute my alpha and beta releases.
> I can't understand the necessity of bc any more because the usage
> of bc in configure can be substituded with expr in coreutils.
xscreensaver (and its configure script) run on systems that do not have bash or (I believe) expr.
Now, I built:
Okay, as per comment 13, let's go with 4.24 for the initial import to extras and
you can switch to 5.0 when it is released in a couple of months.
Does the 4.24-4 rpmlint output look okay?
Thanks for doing the FC-5 update as well. I'll see what I can do about getting
your changes pushed out.
Created attachment 128062 [details]
rpmlint log for xscreensaver-4.24-4.2
To remove one rpmlint complaint, I repackaged xscreensaver ver4 rpm
to 4.24-4.2 .
(srpm and spec file are located as above)
Jamie and me are discussing my patch now.
great to hear!
Jesse do you have any comments about Mamoru's proposed package?
Just to double check, all the runtime defines are defaulted to something that is
what we want in the plague build env right? We won't be able to pass rpmbuild
options inside the build system so they need to default to what makes sense.
Other than that a cursory look looks ok, although this is a very complicated
spec file (:
For version 5, I repackaged rpms as version 188.8.131.52-0.4 (put on the same URL).
rpmlint results are:
rpmlint log for xscreensaver-base-184.108.40.206-0.4.fc6.i386.rpm
W: xscreensaver-base non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/xscreensaver
rpmlint log for xscreensaver-debuginfo-220.127.116.11-0.4.fc6.i386.rpm
rpmlint log for xscreensaver-extras-18.104.22.168-0.4.fc6.i386.rpm
W: xscreensaver-extras non-standard-dir-in-usr libexec
rpmlint log for xscreensaver-gl-extras-22.214.171.124-0.4.fc6.i386.rpm
W: xscreensaver-gl-extras non-standard-dir-in-usr libexec
Rpm spec file is cleaned up to remove annoying complexity, and some patches are
removed for the request of Jamie. The rest patches are now under discussion with
Jamie and me.
Currently, I removed version 4 rpm for extras: I will use xscreensaver-4.24-2
for a moment.
For version 5, I repackaged rpms as version 126.96.36.199-0.5.
Two patches about demo-Gtk.c zombie process issue are integrated into one patch.
I think things are good enough to go in and you really shouldn't have to wait
Go ahead and build it. Tell me when it's done and we can get xscreensaver
dropped from core.
Please wait for my release. What is your big hurry? It won't be long.
For one thing, Mamoru has been calling it "4.99", of which there is no such thing. If you release this, it's
only going to cause hassle for me. Please wait.
Hi Jamie, Momoru,
Just to be clear, I was referring to xscreensaver 4.24 in comment 23, not
The 4.99 rpms are just in preparation for the 5.0 release, yes? They aren't
ever going to be built into extras, right?
Ah. Sorry, I misunderstood.
Hello, Ray and Jamie;
I intended to use xscreensaver-4.24-2 until the formal xscreensaver version 5 is
released. The rpm versioned 4.99-XXXXXX by me is for the preparation and
discussion to release version 5.
However, I decided that I have to fix several bugs on 4.24-2 before moving
xscreensaver to extras. I added the minimum fixes I thought to 4.24-2, removed
rpmlint complaint and repackaged to 4.24-3 (4.24-4 and above is erased....) ,
put on the same URL. I think this rpm (4.24-3) can be released in extras soon.
Then.... What should I do? Ray, I have read
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors, however, am I formally
sponcered by you? If so, I will create fedora account and go ahead.
Yup! This bug is blocking FE-ACCEPT now. Get the account and build the package.
Well, I again read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors,
created my fedora account and requested to add myself to cvsextras group.
I received the e-mail that "Fedora user mtasaka, aka Mamoru Tasaka has requested
membership in the cvsextras group and needs a sponsor".
My current status about cvsextras group is
"role type: user" "role status: unapproved" "Sponsor: none". Can I expect that
someone changes this status?
I saw that this bug is blocked by FE-ACCEPT. But currently it seems that
I have no sponsors on my cvsgroup.
Note: This is my first review package.
I made this bug block FE-NEEDSPONCER. My srpm and spec are still on
Jamie and me are discussing for releasing 5 now. In the discussion one of the
most concerns is about removing some hacks for Fedora packages.
Ray, could you tell us why the hacks (in remove-display-modes) were selected to
be removed from Fedora packages?
Okay, for pre 5.00 version, I updated to 188.8.131.52-0.1.
Jamie, I will send another e-mail later.
XScreenSaver final 5.00 is released.
I prepared :
for FC5 updates:
So, please someone will sponser me? This is my FIRST package.
I cannot still login to fedora cvs-extras building system by cvs.
Sorry there has been a bit of confusion on my part regarding getting you
sponsored. At one point I was told all Red Hat employees are automatically
sponsors. This changed at some point and so I need to get access to sponsor you.
In the mean time, Jesse has approved your access.
Sorry for the confusion.
wrt to comment 31.
The various hacks were removed because they would display uncensored images or
content on the internet, or because they required packages we don't ship to use.
Use your best judgement when deciding which things to remove or add from that file.
Okay. I just received the e-mail saying "Your Fedora cvsextras membership has
been sponsored". Thanks!! Now I try to upload my src.rpm to EXTRAS-devel.
For removing hacks issue, I discussed with Jamie several times. After that,
I decided that now xscreensaver is about to move to FE, I will not remove any
hacks as Jamie requires and I always do so. Additional comment is that for
webcollage issue, xscreensaver 5.00 version now has the option that webcollage
don't access to Web.
I am now continuing to try uploading xscreensaver-5.00-1. I am now faced on a
plague-client error, for which I might have to ask to mailing list.
By the way, could you check my xscreensaver-4.24-3.2 if you want, Ray?
I hope that this rpm can close 191769, 187892, 182552. I also removed rpmlint
ERROR, and and applied some fixed already applied in xscreensaver-5.00.
This time, I could upload my src.rpm. Then I tried to rebuild it but it failed
perhaps because development repomd.xml seems to be broken currently.
I re-try to rebuild when repomd problem is solved.
As I posted to FE mailing list, buildsys for FE-devel seems to be broken for
more than a day.
The jobs which were queued to FE-devel buildsys within a day ago ALL FAILED. All
the queue (not only by me but also for the other packages by other packagers)
left empty build.log and root.log complains like:
Cannot open/read repomd.xml file for repository: core
failure: repodata/repomd.xml from core: [Errno 256] No more mirrors to try.
For my job, the queue results are in
Jesse, is this related to your comment in
and the discussion starting from
For the buildsys problem, I filed it as
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193452 and Jeremy Katz
fixed this bug.
Rebuilding suceeded for FE-devel!! When I am able to see xscreensaver-5.00-1
rpms on internet, I will close this bug as CLOSED NEXTRELEASE.
Now I close this bug as CLOSED NEXTRELEASE.
Okay, xscreensaver-5.00-1.fc6 was released in FE-devel.
I won't release xscreensaver-5.00-1.fc5 in FE-5 because FC-5 has xscreensaver 4.24
Ray, please remove xscreensaver 4.24-2 from FC-devel. Perhaps by FC6-T1, we can
completely move xscreensaver from FC to FE.
I thank very much to all the people for helping me a lot about this issue.
Package Change Request
Package Name: xscreensaver
New Branches: EL-6
The Fedora maintainer (mtasaka) is not maintaining EPEL packages.
To cvs admins:
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).