Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/trensoft/slideshow-lock/srpm-builds/11102911/slideshow-lock.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/trensoft/slideshow-lock/srpm-builds/11102911/slideshow-lock-1.0.9-1.src.rpm Description: slideshow-lock starts a full-screen picture slideshow on the screens of a GNOME session on Wayland when the session has been idle. With the default settings it locks the session when the user touches the keyboard or the mouse; a grace period can be set in the settings. The pictures come from a folder, the settings have a GTK 4 window of their own, and the interface follows the language of the session. Fedora Account System Username: trensoft Upstream: https://github.com/trensoft/slideshow-lock COPR (release builds): https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/trensoft/slideshow-lock/ License: GPL-3.0-or-later for the code; CC-BY-SA-4.0 for the seven sample pictures (spec: "GPL-3.0-or-later AND CC-BY-SA-4.0"). Architecture: noarch, pure Python (PyGObject, GTK 4, libadwaita); per-user systemd service (user unit), no root. This is our first package and we need a sponsor. We would like to become Fedora package maintainers. This ticket blocks FE-NEEDSPONSOR. We are the upstream maintainers of the project. We are not yet in the packager group. We will keep the package up to date and answer bug and security reports for it. Build of version 1.0.9-1 in COPR (x86_64), from the tag v1.0.9 (commit 00950af): build 11102911 succeeded on fedora-43, fedora-44, fedora-rawhide and epel-10, all four in this one build. The SRPM and spec URLs above are from this build; the spec at the Spec URL is identical to packaging/fedora/slideshow-lock.spec at the tag. Lint state of the package as uploaded: - rpmlint 2.8.0 with the Fedora configuration, run by COPR on the built noarch RPM and the SRPM: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered ("2 packages and 0 specfiles checked"), on fedora-43, fedora-44 and fedora-rawhide. COPR wrote no rpmlint output for epel-10. We did not run rpmlint ourselves on 1.0.9. - fedora-review ran in COPR in "--prebuilt" mode only (no rebuild in mock) on fedora-43, fedora-44 and fedora-rawhide. Its template has 75 items: 39 marked [x], 1 marked [!] (the reminder that the reviewer should test the build in mock) and 35 marked [ ] (manual review needed). It has one entry under "Issues" (about the systemd user unit scriptlets). We have not completed the manual items and we are not claiming a clean fedora-review. - licensecheck (from the fedora-review run in COPR; the same result on fedora-43, fedora-44 and fedora-rawhide apart from one build-environment file): 27 files of the source tarball are detected as "GNU General Public License, Version 3" (the modules and launchers of the program, which carry SPDX headers, and the man pages) and README.md as "No copyright" Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0. 200 files (201 in the fedora-rawhide file, which also lists rpmbuild.env) are listed as "Unknown or generated", among them 70 .py files that carry no header (53 in tests/, 17 in tools/), 40 .po files and 35 .tsv files. AI assistance: AI agents were used to write the packaging files of this submission, including the spec file (the commit trailers name Claude and Codex). The README of the project says: "The code of this project was written with the help of AI agents." Some of the commits carry an "Assisted-by:" trailer; it has been used since 2026-10-05, and no commit made before that date has it. Of the 165 non-merge commits up to the tag v1.0.9, 61 have it, among them all ten commits made after the tag v1.0.7; of the 32 commits that touch packaging/fedora, 25 have it. The other commits have no trailer, so the trailers do not show the whole extent of the AI assistance. TrenSoft Team, the holder of the Fedora account, is the author of this submission and is accountable for its content, its license compliance and its maintenance.
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