Spec URL: https://aarem.fedorapeople.org/slim.spec SRPM URL: https://aarem.fedorapeople.org/slim-1.3.6-22.fc37.src.rpm Description: SLiM: simple login manager Fedora Account System Username: aarem This package was retired on F37, I would like to unretire and maintain it. The old spec file compiles fine.
some comments: - the Source0 in spec is invalid, seems the upstream put it on https://github.com/iwamatsu/slim/archive/refs/tags/v1.3.6.tar.gz - some rpmlint error need to fix - not sure the licensecheck says to be an issue, seems GPLv2 and GPLv2 or later mixed in source files: GNU General Public License -------------------------- slim-1.3.6/README GNU General Public License v2.0 or later ---------------------------------------- slim-1.3.6/Ck.cpp slim-1.3.6/PAM.cpp slim-1.3.6/PAM.h slim-1.3.6/app.cpp slim-1.3.6/app.h slim-1.3.6/cfg.cpp slim-1.3.6/cfg.h slim-1.3.6/const.h slim-1.3.6/image.cpp slim-1.3.6/image.h slim-1.3.6/main.cpp slim-1.3.6/numlock.cpp slim-1.3.6/numlock.h slim-1.3.6/panel.cpp slim-1.3.6/panel.cpp.gcc11 slim-1.3.6/panel.h slim-1.3.6/slimlock.cpp slim-1.3.6/switchuser.cpp slim-1.3.6/switchuser.h slim-1.3.6/util.cpp slim-1.3.6/util.h GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- slim-1.3.6/jpeg.c slim-1.3.6/png.c slim-1.3.6/themes/default/COPYRIGHT.panel GNU General Public License, Version 2 ------------------------------------- slim-1.3.6/COPYING slim-1.3.6/themes/default/LICENSE.panel Unknown or generated -------------------- slim-1.3.6/CMakeLists.txt slim-1.3.6/ChangeLog slim-1.3.6/INSTALL slim-1.3.6/README.Fedora slim-1.3.6/THEMES slim-1.3.6/TODO slim-1.3.6/cmake/modules/FONTCONFIGConfig.cmake slim-1.3.6/cmake/modules/FindCkConnector.cmake slim-1.3.6/cmake/modules/FindDBus.cmake slim-1.3.6/cmake/modules/FindPAM.cmake slim-1.3.6/log.cpp slim-1.3.6/log.h slim-1.3.6/pam.sample slim-1.3.6/slim.1 slim-1.3.6/slim.conf slim-1.3.6/slim.conf.fedora slim-1.3.6/slim.conf.selinux slim-1.3.6/slim.service slim-1.3.6/slimlock.1 slim-1.3.6/slimlock.conf slim-1.3.6/slimlock.pam slim-1.3.6/themes/CMakeLists.txt slim-1.3.6/themes/default/CMakeLists.txt slim-1.3.6/themes/default/COPYRIGHT.background slim-1.3.6/themes/default/background.jpg slim-1.3.6/themes/default/panel.png slim-1.3.6/themes/default/slim.theme slim-1.3.6/xinitrc.sample Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/slim See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /root/build_upstream/2173236-slim/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /root/build_upstream/2173236-slim/licensecheck.txt [?]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/logrotate.d [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [?]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 5 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in slim [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [!]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: slim-1.3.6-22.fc39.x86_64.rpm slim-debuginfo-1.3.6-22.fc39.x86_64.rpm slim-debugsource-1.3.6-22.fc39.x86_64.rpm slim-1.3.6-22.fc39.src.rpm ========================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ========================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpkjecbpie')] checks: 31, packages: 4 slim.spec:40: W: unversioned-explicit-provides service(graphical-login) slim.x86_64: W: tmpfiles-conf-in-etc /etc/tmpfiles.d/slim.conf slim.src: W: strange-permission slim-1.3.2-selinux.patch 600 slim.src: W: strange-permission slim-1.3.3-fedora.patch 600 slim.src: W: strange-permission slim-dynwm 600 slim.src: W: strange-permission slim-fedora.txt 600 slim.src: W: strange-permission slim-tmpfiles.conf 600 slim.src: W: strange-permission slim-update_slim_wmlist 600 slim.src: W: strange-permission slim.logrotate.d 600 slim.src: W: strange-permission slim.pam 600 slim.src: W: strange-permission slim.service 600 slim.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/slim slim.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/slimlock slim.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/share/doc/slim/README.Fedora 600 slim.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary slim-dynwm slim.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary update_slim_wmlist slim.x86_64: E: missing-dependency-to-logrotate for logrotate script /etc/logrotate.d/slim slim.x86_64: E: logrotate-log-dir-not-packaged /var/log slim.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/slim/COPYING slim.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/slim/README slim.x86_64: W: empty-%postun slim.x86_64: E: dir-or-file-in-var-run /var/run/slim slim.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/slim/themes/default/background.jpg ../../../backgrounds/tiles/default_blue.jpg ========================================================================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 18 warnings, 5 badness; has taken 0.4 s =========================================================================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: slim-debuginfo-1.3.6-22.fc39.x86_64.rpm ========================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ========================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp_1hn218f')] checks: 31, packages: 1 =========================================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s =========================================================================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 3 slim.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/slim /lib64/libXft.so.2 slim.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/slim /lib64/libfontconfig.so.1 slim.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/slim /lib64/libpam.so.0 slim.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/slim /lib64/libcrypt.so.2 slim.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/slim /lib64/libXrender.so.1 slim.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/slim /lib64/libXrandr.so.2 slim.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/slim /lib64/libfreetype.so.6 slim.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/slim /lib64/libz.so.1 slim.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/slim /lib64/libm.so.6 slim.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/slimlock /lib64/libXft.so.2 slim.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/slimlock /lib64/libcrypt.so.2 slim.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/slimlock /lib64/libXrender.so.1 slim.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/slimlock /lib64/libXrandr.so.2 slim.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/slimlock /lib64/libXmu.so.6 slim.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/slimlock /lib64/libfreetype.so.6 slim.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/slimlock /lib64/libjpeg.so.62 slim.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/slimlock /lib64/libpng16.so.16 slim.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/slimlock /lib64/libz.so.1 slim.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/slimlock /lib64/libm.so.6 slim.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6 /lib64/libz.so.1 slim.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6 /lib64/libm.so.6 slim.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6 XRRGetOutputInfo (/usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6) slim.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6 XRRFreeOutputInfo (/usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6) slim.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6 XRRFreeScreenResources (/usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6) slim.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6 pam_getenv (/usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6) slim.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6 XRRGetOutputPrimary (/usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6) slim.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6 pam_close_session (/usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6) slim.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6 pam_getenvlist (/usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6) slim.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6 pam_putenv (/usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6) slim.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6 pam_open_session (/usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6) slim.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6 XRRGetScreenResources (/usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6) slim.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6 pam_end (/usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6) slim.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6 pam_authenticate (/usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6) slim.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6 XRRFreeCrtcInfo (/usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6) slim.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6 XRRGetCrtcInfo (/usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6) slim.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6 pam_setcred (/usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6) slim.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6 pam_get_item (/usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6) slim.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6 pam_acct_mgmt (/usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6) slim.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6 pam_set_item (/usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6) slim.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6 pam_strerror (/usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6) slim.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6 pam_start (/usr/lib64/libslim.so.1.3.6) slim.x86_64: W: tmpfiles-conf-in-etc /etc/tmpfiles.d/slim.conf slim.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/slim slim.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/slimlock slim.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/share/doc/slim/README.Fedora 600 slim.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary slim-dynwm slim.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary update_slim_wmlist slim.x86_64: E: missing-dependency-to-logrotate for logrotate script /etc/logrotate.d/slim slim.x86_64: E: logrotate-log-dir-not-packaged /var/log slim.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/slim/COPYING slim.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/slim/README slim.x86_64: W: empty-%postun slim.x86_64: E: dir-or-file-in-var-run /var/run/slim slim.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/slim/themes/default/background.jpg ../../../backgrounds/tiles/default_blue.jpg 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 27 errors, 27 warnings, 27 badness; has taken 1.0 s Source checksums ---------------- http://download.berlios.de/slim/slim-1.3.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 21defeed175418c46d71af71fd493cd0cbffd693f9d43c2151529125859810df CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0499c5c83aa7bf6da8c3f3ce7b2017b40bdcb5f649ce2019793cfb151e3d3bd7 diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- slim (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /etc/pam.d /sbin/shutdown /usr/bin/perl /usr/bin/sh config(slim) desktop-backgrounds-basic glibc libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libXft.so.2()(64bit) libXmu.so.6()(64bit) libXrandr.so.2()(64bit) libXrender.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypt.so.2()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libjpeg.so.62()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEG_6.2)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit) libpng16.so.16()(64bit) libpng16.so.16(PNG16_0)(64bit) libslim.so.1.3.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) pam perl(File::DesktopEntry) perl(strict) rtld(GNU_HASH) xterm xwd slim-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): slim-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- slim: config(slim) libslim.so.1.3.6()(64bit) service(graphical-login) slim slim(x86-64) slim-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libslim.so.1.3.6-1.3.6-22.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit) slim-debuginfo slim-debuginfo(x86-64) slim-debugsource: slim-debugsource slim-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2173236 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Haskell, PHP, fonts, Perl, R, Python, Java, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Since im still trying to be a packager, this ticket is my first ticket and sponsored by @jak
> License: GPLv2+ Old Callaway-style tag. Please use an SPDX identifier: "GPL-2.0-or-later" https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_2 > BuildRequires: pkgconfig gettext libselinux-devel pam-devel cmake Missing BuildRequires on make. It gets pulled as a dependency of cmake, but should be required explicitly. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_make_from_BuildRoot > export CXXFLAGS="-std=c++14 $RPM_OPT_FLAGS" > export LDFLAGS="%{optflags} -lXft" 1. "${RPM_OPT_FLAGS}" and "%{optflags}" are basically the same. You should pick one and stick with it. 2. For LDFLAGS, you probably don't want "%{optflags}", but rather "%{build_ldflags}" (or "${RPM_LD_FLAGS}").
All suggested changes made, but for gpgverify. Not quire sure what/how to do this: does upstream publish signatures? Updated files: Spec URL: https://aarem.fedorapeople.org/slim.spec SRPM URL: https://aarem.fedorapeople.org/slim-1.3.6-23.fc37.src.rpm Description: SLiM: simple login manager Fedora Account System Username: aarem This package was retired on F37, I would like to unretire and maintain it. The old spec file compiles fine.
Small comment: The upstream repository seems to be abandoned since 2013. Should this package still exist if it is not maintained anymore?
The package compiles and works fine. Several solid pieces of software do not need updates. I am willing to keep it packaged till it breaks, and will accept co-packagers if there are requests so is there a problem?
Actually, thanks for raising this h-k-81. Turns out there is a newer fork that appears to be maintained. https://sourceforge.net/projects/slim-fork/files/ Should we switch to that? Slim works fine on F37 for me. Has done so since F10 or whenever LXDE came out (recall that this was the original LM with LXDE on Fedora).
Updated files: Spec URL: https://aarem.fedorapeople.org/slim.spec SRPM URL: https://aarem.fedorapeople.org/slim-1.4.0-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: SLiM: simple login manager Fedora Account System Username: aarem This package was retired on F37, I would like to unretire and maintain it. The old spec file has been updated to correspond to version 1.4.0 from the above fork.
I wanted to add that GPG key verification is not needed for this package. According to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_source_file_verification, “Where the upstream project publishes OpenPGP signatures of their releases, Fedora packages SHOULD verify that signature as part of the RPM build process.” Per Fedora-devel ML, no verification is needed. So, I think that we have all the suggested modifications done.
Files updated to include a Fedora 37 wallpaper in the splash screen. Spec URL: https://aarem.fedorapeople.org/slim.spec SRPM URL: https://aarem.fedorapeople.org/slim-1.4.0-2.fc37.src.rpm Description: SLiM: simple login manager Fedora Account System Username: aarem This package was retired on F37, I would like to unretire and maintain it. The old spec file has been updated to correspond to version 1.4.0 from the above fork.
> License: GPL-2.0-or-later #GPLv2+ # license-validate "GPL-2.0-or-later #GPLv2+" No terminal defined for '#' at line 1 col 18 GPL-2.0-or-later #GPLv2+ Expecting: {'OR', 'AND'} # license-validate -v GPL-2.0-or-later Approved license I think GPL-2.0-or-later is fine, maybe the comment can go in another line.
Files updated per Comment #11. Spec URL: https://aarem.fedorapeople.org/slim.spec SRPM URL: https://aarem.fedorapeople.org/slim-1.4.0-3.fc37.src.rpm Description: SLiM: simple login manager Fedora Account System Username: aarem This package was retired on F37, I would like to unretire and maintain it. The old spec file has been updated to correspond to version 1.4.0 from the above fork.
It appears that there are some bugs in 1.4.0 even though the PRM builds fine. While I try to iron them out, I would like to go back to the 1.3.6 versions. All have incorporated the comments about. Spec URL: https://aarem.fedorapeople.org/slim.spec SRPM URL: https://aarem.fedorapeople.org/slim-1.3.6-24.fc37.src.rpm Description: SLiM: simple login manager Fedora Account System Username: aarem This package was retired on F37, I would like to unretire and maintain it. The old spec file has been updated to correspond to version 1.4.0 from the above fork.
One last thing: > Source0: https://github.com/iwamatsu/%{name}/archive/refs/tags/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz should be https://github.com/iwamatsu/%{name}/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz Rest parts LGTM
> > Source0: https://github.com/iwamatsu/%{name}/archive/refs/tags/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > should be https://github.com/iwamatsu/%{name}/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz According to the https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags I think it should be https://github.com/iwamatsu/%{name}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Thanks! I have uploaded the changed spec. New files at: Spec URL: https://aarem.fedorapeople.org/slim.spec SRPM URL: https://aarem.fedorapeople.org/slim-1.3.6-25.fc37.src.rpm Description: SLiM: simple login manager Fedora Account System Username: aarem This package was retired on F37, I would like to unretire and maintain it. The old spec file has been updated to correspond to version 1.4.0 from the above fork. Hopefully, it can now be ready to be approved.
LGTM now, can you help to approve :) @jkadlcik
(In reply to Ranjan Maitra from comment #13) > It appears that there are some bugs in 1.4.0 even though the PRM builds > fine. Could you expand on what those bugs are? I will try to help you fix them. BTW, I note in your spec file line 71: %cmake -DUSE_PAM=yes This should probably be: %cmake -DUSE_PAM=yes -DUSE_CONSOLEKIT=no -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=no -DBUILD_SLIMLOCK=yes (which are the settings used on Devuan) for v1.4.0, although all but the final option probably apply to V1.3.6 too. Regards, Rob
(In reply to One Of The Robs from comment #18) > (In reply to Ranjan Maitra from comment #13) > > It appears that there are some bugs in 1.4.0 even though the PRM builds > > fine. > > Could you expand on what those bugs are? I will try to help you fix them. > > BTW, I note in your spec file line 71: > %cmake -DUSE_PAM=yes > This should probably be: > %cmake -DUSE_PAM=yes -DUSE_CONSOLEKIT=no -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=no > -DBUILD_SLIMLOCK=yes > (which are the settings used on Devuan) for v1.4.0, although all but the > final option probably apply to V1.3.6 too. > > Regards, > Rob Thanks for the offer to help, very appreciated. I basically used the spec file that Fedora shipped for ten years with 1.3.6. The spec file builds fine but the built binary has a bug. It does not launch.
Do you mean it doesn't launch automatically, or that when you run it you get a crash? Try using the "preview" mode to see whether it's basically working (this doesn't test everything but gets most of it) If it's a matter of not getting auto-started then look to see what the systemd service file looks like. There is a patch applied on Devuan because the CMakeLists.txt erroneously lost the install step for that file, although a first glance suggested that Fedora (like Gentoo) doesn't actually use the default install anyway. Regards, Rob
(In reply to One Of The Robs from comment #20) > Do you mean it doesn't launch automatically, or that when you run it you get > a crash? > Try using the "preview" mode to see whether it's basically working (this > doesn't test everything but gets most of it) > > If it's a matter of not getting auto-started then look to see what the > systemd service file looks like. There is a patch applied on Devuan because > the CMakeLists.txt erroneously lost the install step for that file, although > a first glance suggested that Fedora (like Gentoo) doesn't actually use the > default install anyway. > > Regards, > Rob Thanks, Rob! It installs just fine, but it does not start (crashes). I can attach a screenshot that i took while running it on qemu.
(In reply to Ranjan Maitra from comment #21) > I can attach a screenshot that i took while running it on qemu. That would be helpful. I've updated an old / spare machine to F37 so I can have a look at trying to recreate the problem.
Thanks for your help, the solution was as you said to change daemon to no. I think that i have been approved for 1.3.6, but after it gets past approval, I will update the package to 1.4.0.
(In reply to lichaoran from comment #17) > LGTM now, can you help to approve :) @jkadlcik When someone reviews a package, he should assign the bug report to himself and move the report to ASSIGNED state. It did it for you.
Thank you @ppisar, I didn't notice that. Also, for the record, I already set the fedora-review+ a couple of days ago.
FEDORA-2023-4f9fcb3820 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4f9fcb3820
FEDORA-2023-cc04aa3bdd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-cc04aa3bdd
FEDORA-2023-4f9fcb3820 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-4f9fcb3820` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4f9fcb3820 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-cc04aa3bdd has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-cc04aa3bdd` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-cc04aa3bdd See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-4f9fcb3820 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-cc04aa3bdd has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.