[Bug 188574] Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188574 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188574] Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188574 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 06:37 EST --- In 0.8.1.p-2 I've put in your code to work around RPM bug #189928 as well as a patch to configure.in which actually honours the CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS passed on by %configure. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188574] Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188574 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-29 11:32 EST --- (In reply to comment #18) Debuginfo rpm contains broken symlinks. ./rss-glx_0.8.1.p/oglc_src/driver.cpp ./rss-glx_0.8.1.p/other_src/driver.c ./rss-glx_0.8.1.p/reallyslick/c_src/driver.c ./rss-glx_0.8.1.p/reallyslick/cpp_src/driver.cpp All of these are broken. This is a bug in rpmbuild debuginfo creation, see bug #189928. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188574] Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188574 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-29 12:07 EST --- Hello, Nils. For symlink problem, I received your comment #19 by mail AFTER I posted #20. Sorry for not recognizing your comment. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188574] Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188574 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-26 05:05 EST --- Agreed, at least symlinking those files in the xscreensavers subpackage sounds feasible, which might also help with xscreensaver-demo. The placement of them in /usr/bin is upstream matter and I'll leave them there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188574] Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188574 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-26 07:20 EST --- The new SRPM is at: http://tiptoe.de/dav/rss-glx-0.8.1.p-0.5.src.rpm Changes: - Contains the symlinks for XScreenSaver/kxs* - owns non-standard directories -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188574] Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188574 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-26 07:22 EST --- Wrong URL (cut and paste error), real one is: http://tiptoe.de/dav/rss-glx-0.8.1.p-0.6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188574] Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188574 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-25 11:30 EST --- I note that neither xscreensaver-extras nor xscreensaver-gl-extras installs any of the hacks in /usr/bin. Perhaps would be a good idea for this package to follow that example, not only due to the KDE issue but to maintain consistency. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188574] Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188574 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-24 12:06 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) Things are looking good now. One new rpmlint warning (a line in %description is too long). Fixed. However, I went to test this on a couple of i386 FC5 machines under KDE (so rss-glx and rss-glx-kde are installed); the hacks display when run directly (they open a small window in the background) but as KDE screensavers there are some issues: They show up at the bottom of the list, not filed under OpenGL Screen Savers. Maybe they should have their own place in the hierarchy? (Really Slick Screen Savers?) I think you do this by using X-KDE-Category= in the desktop file. It's probably also worth using X-KDE-Type=OpenGL as well. But it looks like you're just using the desktop files supplied by upstream here; I'm not sure if it's worth it to hack them up. The desktop files include Actions=InWindow;Root but then go on to define a Setup action as well. Let others decide whether it was worth it, it was just one line of awk per desktop file ;-). The setup page for each screensaver doesn't work at all unless you also install rss-glx-screensaver. Should this be a dependency of rss-glx-kde, or is something else wrong? Seems KDE (specifixally its kxs* tools) depends on the XSS files being in place for all XSS-like hacks. I've added a dependency. The screensavers don't actually do anything; the Test button causes the desktop to pause (system monitor and clock stop updating), but nothing is actually displayed. This happens on my home machine with binary Nvidia driver and a machine here at work with a Radeon R200 (stock X driver). Any ideas? Not ATM. I'll try it at a colleague's desktop (he uses KDE) to see whether the above fixes change anything in that regard. I've put the new package at (note the added .p in the version to indicate that we're working with modified sources): http://tiptoe.de/dav/rss-glx-0.8.1.p-0.5.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188574] Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188574 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-24 12:22 EST --- Hmm, it didn't work on his KDE desktop either. Should I disable the -kde subpackage then until upstream fixes it or someone provides a patch as I don't really have a clue about the KDE screensaver system? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188574] Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188574 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-25 00:25 EST --- I did some work and found something useful: KDE does this to start the biof (for example) screensaver when you click the Test button: kxsrun biof -- --root (this comes from the biof.desktop file). strace'ing this gives (among a big pile of stuff): 8989 access(/usr/libexec/xscreensaver/biof, F_OK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) But it was installed in /usr/bin/biof. Symlinking it to where kxsrun wants to see it results in a working screensaver. So I guess it's reasonable to ask why these are in /usr/bin instead of /usr/libexec/xscreensaver. They aren't really useful when called directly, are they? I also noticed that xscreensaver-demo doesn't show any of the new hacks, even after I make the symlink. (I have the rss-glx-xscreensaver package installed.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188574] Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188574 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-23 10:46 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) You might consider being a bit more descriptive in %description. Perhaps something like: A port of the Really Slick Screensavers to GLX. Provides several visually impressive and graphically intensive screensavers. Note that this package contains only the display hacks themselves; you will need to install the appropriate subpackage for your desktop environment in order to use them as screensavers. (Or whatever; I'm making this up on the spot. The point is that people won't understand what is meant by contains only the hacks themselves.) Thanks, I've updated the description blocks accordingly. The permissions on rss-glx-rm-matrixview.sh are 0775, which is a bit odd (and rpmlint complains about it). Executable documentation is generally frowned upon and rpmlint also complains about it (because your documentation pulls in an additional /bin/bash dependency). I would recommend just installing it 0644 and leave it at that. Done. Is there any reason to package rss-glx_install.pl? This pulls in an odd perl(strict) dependency but not a plain perl dependency, which looks a bit odd. (I know perl provides perl(strict), but perl probably shouldn't be needed at all.) Not necessary and removed. You use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in some places and %buildroot in others. The packaging guidelines require one or the other to be used consistently. Fixed. The new files are at the usual locations with the new SRPM at: http://tiptoe.de/dav/rss-glx-0.8.1-0.4.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188574] Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188574 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-22 05:26 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) I figured this could use a little attention, so here are some comments: Could you provide a script to generate your patched source tarball from upstream's? I've included the script, necessary patch file and a README.fedora to describe these as documentation. I've uploaded these also here: http://tiptoe.de/dav/README.fedora http://tiptoe.de/dav/rss-glx-rm-matrixview.sh http://tiptoe.de/dav/rss-glx-0.8.1-0.8.1.p.diff The new, script-generated tarball is also at: http://tiptoe.de/dav/rss-glx_0.8.1.p.tar.bz2 Might it be possible to include the matrixview hack but replace the images with, I don't know, the Fedora logo and pictures of Seth or something? Or even nothing; it only uses the compiled-in images if the user doesn't specify a directory containing images. The format in which these default images are kept is quite obscure... I might try it at a later point (or hey, I'll accept patches ;-) but for starters we can do without that hack I think. The package builds in mock (development, x86_64) but rpmlint finds quite a bit to complain about. I'll group the complaints by type: W: rss-glx no-version-in-last-changelog W: rss-glx-debuginfo no-version-in-last-changelog W: rss-glx-gnome-screensaver no-version-in-last-changelog W: rss-glx-kde no-version-in-last-changelog W: rss-glx-xscreensaver no-version-in-last-changelog Many of your changelog entries don't include version information. I'va added version info for the latest and next-to-latest entry, I'm not sure about the older ones so I'll leave them blank. E: rss-glx obsolete-not-provided rss_glx If you obsolete something, you must also provide it. I don't obsolete it anymore as it was only for an old version I never really distributed. E: rss-glx zero-length /usr/share/doc/rss-glx-0.8.1/NEWS E: rss-glx zero-length /usr/share/doc/rss-glx-0.8.1/AUTHORS No point in packaging these. Removed. W: rss-glx-debuginfo dangling-relative-symlink /usr/src/debug/rss-glx_0.8.1.p/oglc_src/driver.cpp ../src/driver.cpp W: rss-glx-debuginfo dangling-relative-symlink /usr/src/debug/rss-glx_0.8.1.p/other_src/driver.c ../src/driver.cpp W: rss-glx-debuginfo dangling-relative-symlink /usr/src/debug/rss-glx_0.8.1.p/reallyslick/cpp_src/driver.cpp ../../src/driver.cpp W: rss-glx-debuginfo dangling-relative-symlink /usr/src/debug/rss-glx_0.8.1.p/reallyslick/c_src/driver.c ../../src/driver.cpp These all seem to be bogus. W: rss-glx-gnome-screensaver no-documentation W: rss-glx-kde no-documentation W: rss-glx-xscreensaver no-documentation Definitely bogus. A large number of warnings like this: W: rss-glx-gnome-screensaver dangling-symlink /usr/libexec/gnome-screensaver/rss-glx-cyclone /usr/bin/cyclone rpmlint is smart enough to ignore symlinks to files in required packages when those symlinks are in -devel packages, but not in this case. These can all be ignored. W: rss-glx-gnome-screensaver non-standard-dir-in-usr libexec I was recently informed on IRC that /usr/libexec is not discouraged in Fedora, so I don't understand this warning at all. I'll do a full review tomorrow. Thanks. I've uploaded the new spec file as well, new SRPM is uploading at the moment, both will be at: http://tiptoe.de/dav/rss-glx.spec http://tiptoe.de/dav/rss-glx-0.8.1-0.3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188574] Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188574 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-22 05:31 EST --- Hmm, that generated tarball didn't build here. Stay tuned, I'll probably have a bug in the generating script or in the patch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188574] Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188574 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-22 05:42 EST --- The diff file didn't contain changes to one Makefile.am (ouch). Fixed versions of the diff file, the generated tarball and SRPM are uploading right now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188574] Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188574 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188574] Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188574 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-23 00:39 EST --- Thanks; your method for generating the fixed tarball is quite nice. You might consider being a bit more descriptive in %description. Perhaps something like: A port of the Really Slick Screensavers to GLX. Provides several visually impressive and graphically intensive screensavers. Note that this package contains only the display hacks themselves; you will need to install the appropriate subpackage for your desktop environment in order to use them as screensavers. (Or whatever; I'm making this up on the spot. The point is that people won't understand what is meant by contains only the hacks themselves.) The permissions on rss-glx-rm-matrixview.sh are 0775, which is a bit odd (and rpmlint complains about it). Executable documentation is generally frowned upon and rpmlint also complains about it (because your documentation pulls in an additional /bin/bash dependency). I would recommend just installing it 0644 and leave it at that. Other rpmlint warnings are bogus as previously addressed. Is there any reason to package rss-glx_install.pl? This pulls in an odd perl(strict) dependency but not a plain perl dependency, which looks a bit odd. (I know perl provides perl(strict), but perl probably shouldn't be needed at all.) You use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in some places and %buildroot in others. The packaging guidelines require one or the other to be used consistently. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. X specfile is properly named and is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. O source files don't match upsteam due to removal of unacceptable content. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). X rpmlint complains about the executable rm-matrixview script. ? final provides are fine; requires are a bit odd: rss-glx = 0.8.1-0.3.fc6 - /bin/bash /usr/bin/env libGL.so.1()(64bit) libGLU.so.1()(64bit) libICE.so.6()(64bit) libSM.so.6()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libalut.so.0()(64bit) libbz2.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libopenal.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) ? perl(strict) * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. X file permissions are appropriate (ok except for mode 770 rss-glx-rm-matrixview.sh * %clean is present * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. O not a GUI app. (Well, sort of; special desktop files for each environment are included, but the hacks aren't indended to be run directly.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
